GOP Looks Bellicose

34 Comments

1. 

   anegadagino on November 23, 2011 at 9:40 am

   I was struck by two things:

   1. I thought the questioners sounded much better informed (smarter, perhaps) than the so-called candidates.

   2. I thought Michele Bachman probably betrayed national security secrets regarding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

2. 

   JeffL on November 23, 2011 at 10:31 am

   Foreign policy debates are worse than the others for me.  Candidates can say almost any nonsense and get challenged.  Moderators never know enough to press a decent question.  Other candidates seldom know enough to challenge another.  

   And it really boils down to Americans knowing little about other countries and regions of the world.

3. 

   ejmw on November 23, 2011 at 10:48 am

   If I had been a moderator my question would have been to hand out a sheet of paper with this on it and tell the candidates to please fill in the country names.

   

   I can do it.  I’m sure you can do it.  Shouldn’t they be able to do it?  I bet only Paul and Huntsman would come anywhere close.

   • 

     seabe on November 23, 2011 at 11:22 am

     I thought the same thing when Cain started speaking. Live-blogging:

     Herman Cain…who has introduced himself saying “national security” has been downgraded. Yeah, Herman Cain, could you find Libya on the map?

     As for “we could do it,” I couldn’t remember Oman.

     • 

       ejmw on November 23, 2011 at 11:34 am

       I wonder if Herman Cain would be able to fill in any of them.

       Oman and Yemen are part of a package deal for me – my mnemonic is that they’re in alphabetic order from top to bottom.  YMMV, but it works for me 🙂

       • 

         BooMan on November 23, 2011 at 11:37 am

         Just remember, the capital of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan is Shamalamadingdong-abad.

         • 

           ejmw on November 23, 2011 at 11:45 am

           ok now that’s funny.  I was actually laughing out loud at the ‘Major Raw Materials’ section.

       • 

         seabe on November 23, 2011 at 11:46 am

         I remember a lot of them based on our foreign bombing campaigns, and the history behind the region.

         Use Israel or Iraq as a starting point, then go from there. Israel is next to Egypt, which is on the “body” of Africa. Israel and Lebanon’s conflicts…so they’re touching each other, Lebanon to the north. Syria occupied Lebanon, so they need to be connected. Iraq is Iraq…if you don’t know where it is something is wrong with you (like Fox News). Iraq-Iran conflicts…so they’re connected. Saudi Arabia is another obvious one. Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, so Kuwait must be that small dot there. Saudi Arabia and Yemen have had a historical border dispute with one another. UAE is small but larger than Qatar. Afghanistan and Iran are connected (but again, you should f’ing know where Afghanistan is). Pakistan and Afghanistan are connected, historical disputes, etc. Pakistan/India border is perhaps one of the most famous, must be connected.

         I think knowing the countries indicates whether you know the recent history of the region…it’s just simple deduction.

   • 

     MNPundit on November 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm

     Why isn’t Georgia shown on that map? >:(

     • 

       ejmw on November 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm

       Aha, good catch!  It was just a blank map I pulled from a google image search and didn’t look all that closely at.

       I swapped it out for a better one if you refresh this page.

       • 

         MNPundit on November 23, 2011 at 6:02 pm

         Thanks, I see it now. It was so basic it looked a bit off.

         I still get Bahrain and Qatar mixed up though.

   • 

     joe from Lowell on November 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm

     That little diamond south of Iraq – that’s Iran, right?

     Shoot, we can kick the snot out of them!

4. 

   Bazooka Joe on November 23, 2011 at 11:54 am

   This is pivoting, but has anybody else noticed how little interest the political blogosphere has for the Middle East movements lately? I say this because some pretty major shit is going down in Egypt, and the blog response could not be more different from Jan/Feb.

   The obot sections can’t figure out how this is good for the President (or worse, are beginning to realize that the US never really had gamechanging pull in Egypt to begin with, unlike with the NATO response in Libya or the complicated dances that go on with the GCC) and thus don’t care. The firebagging contingent is a fraud and despises genuine human rights progress anywhere, as it gives them something less to complain about. But simultaneously, the US hasn’t really been an open obstacle to any movements, thus also giving them less to complain about. So they’re stuck. The right hates brown people, and is stunned to find out that the revolutions haven’t produced any islamist terrorist hellscapes yet to demagogue against. And the “middle class” of the blog world is just plum burned out, I’d reckon.

   Looks like Saleh is finally going to take asylum. I could never figure out why he was allowed to go back to Yemen after almost being assassinated in the first place? But I’m sure it had to do with 85,000 different things going on in the shadows, 84,993 of which wouldn’t make any sense to any of us out here anyway.

   • 

     Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm

     Honestly, I spend more time looking at my twitter feed than the blogs these days (and my time is fairly limited). Folks I follow for the most part are not really associated with whatever is going on with the Gated Community Blogs, and quite a number of them continue to be good sources for what is going down in Egypt.

     • 

       Indianadem on November 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm

       Its local for me since a college student from here was arrested last night. (firewalled)

       “He’s never been violent in his life. He’s a pacifist,” said Sharon Gates, mother of IU junior and Bloomington High School South graduate Luke Gates. “I know he had gone to some protests. I’m not denying that. But from what I understand, all the students over there were watching the protests.”

       Gates and two other students at the American University in Cairo were arrested Monday night. An Egyptian official told the Associated Press the students were throwing firebombs from atop a university building at security forces who were fighting with protesters near Tahrir Square.

       Also arrested were Derrik Sweeney, 19, a Georgetown University student from Jefferson City, Mo., and Gregory Porter, 19, a Drexel University student from Glenside, Pa.

       Hope State can get the kids out of there safely.

5. 

   Arthur Gilroy on November 23, 2011 at 1:51 pm

   Booman writes:

   A fair assessment of President Obama’s foreign policy must conclude that it shares some of the same faults. But it’s not really a close call if you’re choosing between them.

   This of course assumes that we must choose between them, and that assumption…that entirely media-defined “common knowledge”…is thus thought to be a right and good thing. That’s how the trancemedia work. They repeat a big lie over and over and over again until they simply batter people into submission. “That’s just he way it is, I guess” goes the current media-promoted meme, “There’s no one else offering a better idea.”

   Meanwhile Ron Paul continues to offer any number of better ideas.

   Like:

   On war. We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless,unconstitutional,undeclared wars. (Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa, August 2007)

   On freedom. There is only one kind of freedom and that’s individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it. (Brainy Quote)

   On the US politicians. With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? (June 2011)

   On Barack Obama. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship. (Ron Paul’s open letter, November 2011)

   On the US presidential elections. “There’s a risk I could win.” (The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, 2007)

   On the US intervention in Iraq. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is the US military. (Brainy Quote)

   On use of violence. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense. (Brainy Quote)

   On the US economy. Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened. (Speech at CPAC, February 2010)

   On capitalism. Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. (Great Quotes)

   On national ID card. I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don’t need a national ID card. (Brainy Quote)

   I repeat:

   There’s a risk I could win.

   There really is, you know. All of the other Ratpubs split the pro-war, pro-continuing-the-same-PermaGov-policies-of-the-last-24-years-or-so vote among them and Ron Paul wins the nomination. Then he thoroughly trounces Obama’s ass on his handling the economy, his foreign policy and most importantly on his support of a surveillance state in the name of “safety.”

   UH oh!!! Y’mean we’ll be able to act like Americans again !!!???

   Oh NO!!!

   But you buy into that impossibility. And every sale of that sort brings the meme closer to fruition.

   No Ron Paul.

   No real challenger to the status quo.

   Just another PermaGov win/win, bad cop/good cop electoral hustle.

   “Say!!! Ya wanna hit ’em wif our left hand or our right hand this time, boss?”

   “I dunno, soldier. Which one is less worn out?”

   And so the farce continues.

   Thanks, Booman.

   We needed that.

   Like a hole in the head.

   Rep. Paul again :

   With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?

   OH yes!!!

   Precisely.

   Later…

   AG

   • 

     Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

     We could go on and on, I suppose, but just starting with Paul’s statement about capitalism: that is patently false. Capitalism has been around since the days of mercantilism. Perhaps he wishes to position himself as a throwback to those days of the mercantile era or the early industrial revolution, but my understanding of that period was that it certainly wasn’t pretty for what would have been that era’s 99%.

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on November 23, 2011 at 4:41 pm

       “Capitalism” turns to fascism when the corporations and the state merge.

       From one of the horses’ mouths:

       Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. – Benito Mussolini.

       Read this:

       Fascism Anyone?

       Fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for.

        By Laurence W. Britt

        The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
        We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

        Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

        For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

        Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

           1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent  displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was  usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on  xenophobia.

           2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

            3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a  means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice–relentless propaganda and disinformation–were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional  national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and”terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

           4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even  when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

           5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

            6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were  under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass  media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

            7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

           8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

            9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

           10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

           11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

           12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

           13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

           14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

        Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

       “When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.”  – Huey Long

       Ron Paul is saying…and I must agree with him…that “capitalism” is a free enterprise system and that it has been a long, long time since enterprises of any sort in the U.S. were anything even resembling “free.”

       Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech when he spoke of the military/industrial complex.

       In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

       Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

       Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

       Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

       It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

       Eisenhower would have been appalled to see the creature that  has grown out of the nexus where corporate industry, the military, government and the scientific-technological elite cross.

       The surveillance state. Surveillance aimed  only at buttressing the power of what I like to call the Permanent Government. See Mussolini’s quote above for all that you need to know on that point.

       Ike didn’t have a clue about how fiercely this thing was going to grow…to metastasize. Not a clue.

       The dybbuk has taken over its creators.

       

       They always do, y’know.

       That’s the point of the story.

       The question is…what’re you gonna do about it?

       Ron Paul wants to tame the beast.

       You?

       AG

       • 

         seabe on November 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

         Ron Paul wants to return to judges and Old Testament Common Law, and Patriarchal Control. He doesn’t want to tame shit, except for those uppity negroes and snappy bitchy wives who should go to the kitchen.

         We have deferred to.. to the federal government. We have weighed too much government. We should go in other directions. Before you know it the next step — what if the next step is, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the United Nations defined marriage?”

         I don’t want to go that way, I want to go back down… all the way to the family and the Church — believe me it would be a happier and more peaceful world if we went in that direction, rather than asking the government and asking the King to solve all these problems… we need the family to deal with it.

         And we can take our message and learn something from the Old Testament, how there was such a strong emphasis on the Patriarchal society and the disputes settled by judges rather than looking for Big Government.

         Wake the fuck up!

         • 

           tom allen on November 23, 2011 at 5:51 pm

           “Return to patriarchal control”!!!!1!!!

           ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

           wipes tears from his eyes

           I’m sorry.  You’re under the illusion that we’re not under patriarchal control right now?  Tell your boss that.  Or your minister.  Or your mayor.  Or your teacher.

           LOLOLOL!

           But please, tell me again how I must, must, must send money right now to the Democratic Party headquarters, and under no circumstance go out to that anarchic, counterculture, hippie OWS.

           But this is Booman TRIBUNE, right?

           Wiki: “Tribune was a title shared by elected officials in the Roman Republic. Tribunes had the power to convene the Plebeian Council and to act as its president, which also gave them the right to propose legislation before it. They were sacrosanct, in the sense that any assault on their person was prohibited. They had the power to veto actions taken by magistrates, and specifically to intervene legally on behalf of plebeians. The tribune could also summon the Senate and lay proposals before it. “

           Yep, you guys sure hate the patriarchy all right! 🙂

         • 

           seabe on November 23, 2011 at 6:09 pm

           1. I’ve never given money to the Democratic Party
           2. Don’t lecture me — of all people — about patriarchy
           3. I’d say we’re far different than “a strong emphasis on the Patriarchal society and the disputes settled by judges”.

           If you disagree with three, by all means, rally around Ron Paul for a return to how awesome times were in the Old Testament.

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on November 23, 2011 at 6:35 pm

           …except for those uppity negroes and snappy bitchy wives who should go to the kitchen.

           How do you extrapolate that message from his statements at the forum to which you refer?

           Here is what he has said about racism:

           Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

           Pretty clear, eh? Unless of course you are a “collectivist” yourself and simply hate Christians. At which point you’d have the same trouble with MLK Jr. that you have with Ron Paul, I guess.  Takes all kinds…

           it appears to me that the above statement also applies to sexism. (Please note the last sentence. You know…the “gender” word?) When you substitute the word “sexism” for “racism”, it still resonates quite logically.

           Sexism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Sexists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, sexists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate sexism. Their obsession with sexual group identity is inherently sexist. The true antidote to sexism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

           Yup.

           Sure sounds like he hates them “others”, eh?

           Where do you get off with this shit?

           AG

         • 

           Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 8:09 pm

           Collectivism is a form of social organization in which the individual’s self-concept is based primarily on her/his affiliation with important groups – family/work groups/etc. I’m not sure it logically or empirically follows that someone from such a cultural background would be racist. Explain the racism (and sexism for that matter) that we experience in what are arguably hyperindividualistic societies (such as the US and the UK). Here we have individuals who only loosely affiliate with their groups and yet still manage to see members of other racial or ethnic groups as inferior.

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on November 23, 2011 at 8:42 pm

           Explain please. Does not compute.

           AG

         • 

           Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm

           Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Paul means by collectivism. I may be misunderstanding something. Is he referring a social pattern that is distinctly different from an individualistic social pattern? Is he referring to the society that has a collectivistic pattern being racist or is he referring to individuals from such a society being racist? Where is his data to support whatever claim he is trying to make?

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on November 24, 2011 at 4:12 am

           He is apparently using the word as Ayn Rand used it. I am by no means an Ayn Rand scholar, but a little searching pulled up a page devoted to defining Rand’s terms. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z.

           The word “collectivism” is apparently used by her and her followers in the following way(s):

           Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group–whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

           Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective–society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.–is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

           Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.

           The gist of his meaning here? It sounds to me like he is saying that viewing people as part of a subgroup denies them their own individual identity. Thus, Jews are one thing, African Americans are another, females yet another and so on. Speaking of racism, he writes:

           Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.

           “Data?” A broad philosophical view like this one does not need “data” to back it up. You either see it or you don’t. I do.

           AG

         • 

           Don Durito on November 25, 2011 at 1:38 am

           Just got back into town a bit ago. Please indulge me while I think aloud a bit.

           I know you made mention of data in another reply, so I’ll just group the two replies together a bit. One thing I do know reasonably well is data (numbers, evidence, what have you). Although numbers don’t speak for themselves, they do shed light. I know you seem to want to talk about data manipulation and such, but really at least in the fields of which I have some knowledge, data manipulation for whatever purpose would be called fraud and those who are fraudulent tend not to fare well. That said, I do think a willingness to question the source of research funding is critical, and tend to be wary of research funded by for-profit corporations (let’s just say there would need to be a damn lot of replications from independent sources before I begin to trust such research).

           Anyhoo, all that said, my bottom line is: No data. No dice.

           Take it on faith? Not gonna happen.

           As to the source of Ron Paul’s likely interpretation of the term, collectivism: Houston, we’ve got a problem.

           I have a little bit of familiarity with Ayn Rand’s work. I honestly wish I didn’t. I know there are a number of Randians – perhaps even a few here. Heck, followers of hers have had control of vast swaths of our economic and political system for the past few decades. That’s worked out, well, we know how well that’s worked out. Just look at what Greenspan (an ardent follower of hers did with his tenure on the Fed), or the architect of neoliberalism (Milton Friedman) let loose, etc. The data? Just look at the redistribution of wealth since the 1970s, the unemployment and underemployment figures, and so on. It ain’t pretty, except for a handful who profited mightily. It’s a philosophy of, by, and for the 1%, and I think a case – with data – could be made to support that statement.

           As far as conversations about individualism/collectivism and racism – those are very broad and complicated topics. Racism itself – do we want to examine individual or systemic? Although both concern me, the latter concerns me more. To get into individualism and collectivism, we are getting at matters of how cultures are organized (I tend to use individualism and collectivism as falling along a continuum – so is a society or culture relatively more individualistic or collectivistic), and even then, there are various flavors of individualism and collectivism to be considered (far beyond the sort of caricature Paul by way of Rand gives us regarding collectivism). Is the culture or society relatively vertical (hierarchical – e.g. patriarchal, top-down, authoritarian) or is it relatively horizontal (non-hierarchical – e.g, egalitarian, nonauthoritarian, etc.)? That’s a topic that would take probably more than a few replies and perhaps a few diaries within the context of a blog format in order to be given the treatment it deserves. Give me a few weeks and perhaps I could spare the time. At the moment, I simply have too many irons in the fire.

           Okay, so much for thinking out loud. I wish I knew how to say what I want to say in a way that was clearer, or had some real clever one-liners. For now, this is all I’ve got. I’m guessing that with regards to Paul you and I already have our minds pretty well made up. So it goes.

         • 

           hz on November 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm

           Here we have individuals who only loosely affiliate with their groups and yet still manage to see members of other racial or ethnic groups as inferior.

           I don’t see it.  It seems to me that racism today is still largely a tribal instinct of us vs them, expressed most strongly where people still affiliate strongly with their groups, like small towns and neighborhoods, gated communities, churches, etc.  Where individuals don’t have strong affiliations, I’d suggest that you see a lot less racist tendency.  Unless you’re speaking of the institutional racism that surrounds all of us, but that’s not how I read you.

           I’m not necessarily disagreeing, just would appreciate an elaboration of your point.

         • 

           Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 9:37 pm

           I’m trying to type a lot on the fly in between various errands, so I am probably garbling what I want to say. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that Ron Paul’s assertion about racism and collectivism didn’t seem especially sensible. What I was trying to say very poorly is that I don’t see how a “collectivist” or interdependent mindset would be any more likely to lead to racism than an “individualistic” mindset. If there’s some solid body of research out there that would suggest that societies with interdependent social patterns or individuals who come from such societies are more racist than those who do not, I’d love to see it.  

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on November 24, 2011 at 6:04 am

           I am not a particular fan of “research” and “data” on this level, Don. Not in this system, anyway. Almost the whole of academia has been thoroughly politicized and corporatized over the past 50 years or so, and data that pertains to social issues is highly suspect as a result. Ron Paul’s basic point here is that the last 50+ years of efforts to end various societal racial and sexual biases by legislating them out of existence, by forcing institutions and individuals to hire and fire according to “collectivist” concepts (politically correct ratios as defined by the same sort of data collection that I so distrust) has failed miserably.

           Yes, the ratios are now more correct…again, correct according to the suspect data collectors…than they were pre-Civil Rights movement, but during the same period of time the entire system has gotten so bogged down in a morass of often contradictory rules that it has been rendered almost unable to function.

           I have seen this happen in my own life in the musical world. Symphony orchestras, Broadway show bands, conservatories, even serious independent ensembles in all idioms have been forced to hire certain minorities at certain ratios often at the expense of the level of talent within those groups. This cuts a number of ways, of course. It’s not only a “minority” thing as we define the word in general societal discourse. Bands and idioms that had been quite successfully drawing from a predominately African-American or Hispanic talent pool were also forced to be politically correct on some level and hire white players who really didn’t understand how to play the music. Ditto with male/female ratios.

           Now…what was happening pre-so called “politically correct” times was also wrong and socially ineffective. As the old African-American saying went:

           If you white, you alright.
           If you brown, stick aroun’.
           If you black…get back!!!

           In terms of human ecology this approach produced the total waste of an enormous amount of talent on every level of society, and not just among African-Americans. It affected women, Hispanics, LGBT and other nationalities and groups over time…the works. But as a dumb doctor might say, “The operation was a success but we lost the patient.”

           There must be a third way. Neither collectivist/racist-sexist nor collectivist/politically correctist.

           Meritist/Individualist. The best candidate gets the position regardless of any other considerations.

           That is what Ron Paul is getting at here. Nothing more and nothing less. Is it a practical goal? I dunno, myself. The segregationist, racist and sexist tendencies…all collectivist at root… so thoroughly established in American culture today make it harder for certain segments of the society to get a good education than it is for other segments, thus the better-educated get the better jobs and this negative cycle is perpetuated and grows from generation to generation. Can this basic inequality be somehow legislated away, and if so at what level?

           These questions are above my pay grade, I am afraid. I am not a legislator or a politician and neither am I a social scientist or an academic of some sort. I am simply someone…a white musician of primarily Celtic extraction who was accepted by the best players of several primarily non-white musical traditions on merit and merit alone…who has seen both sides of the societal mirror as a result of occupying that position. What I do see is a socio-political system on the verge of lockdown and paralysis, and I also see only one national politician who is offering new ideas about ways to break that ongoing paralysis.

           Everybody else?

           The same old same old.

           Right vs. left.

           Conservative vs. liberal.

           Republican vs. Democrat.

           Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

           “Round and ’round they go, always ending up in the same damned economic imperialist place. Blood for oil  and other resources from the right, blood for oil and other resources from the left. Just different styles of bloodletting.

           And then there is Ron Paul saying “No. You are both wrong!!! Here is what we can do,” and then laying it all out on the table.

           We’ve tried the other two ways and no matter which way we have gone the nation has remained at real risk of total economic failure.

           Hmmmmm….

           Is there really a choice in the matter other than to try a whole new approach?

           I think not, myself.

           Your results may differ, of course. That’s what makes horse races and democracies, I guess.

           So it goes.

           Up, down or sideways once again?

           We shall see, soon enough.

           Bet on it.

           Later…

           AG

         • 

           Oui on November 24, 2011 at 6:19 am

           .
           Plenty of vindication (not truly needed) for the opinion and writing of Arthur Gilroy here at the pond. Arthur thinks outside the box, just like Steve Keen who knew the fallout of capitalism was coming. Your activism and knowledge of the music culture in New York and during your travels provides us with a special insight. Thank you.

           "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on November 24, 2011 at 10:20 am

           Thank you, Oui.

           I do keep trying. Maybe that’s one reason why I like Ron Paul’s act. He keeps trying, too.

           Later…

           AG

         • 

           Don Durito on November 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm

           And at the moment I am trying to make some assumptions about what Ron Paul might mean while not being entirely sure.

   • 

     joe from Lowell on November 24, 2011 at 11:25 am

     For Arthur’s theory about the two parties to be true, one would have to believe that the Iraq War was no big deal.

     After all, Bill Clinton’s foreign policy, George Bush’s foreign policy – same same, amirite?

     Bet on it, wake up, yadda yadda.