... well, that makes about as much sense as the "Obama is a fascist!" talk I've been reading on some of the blogs. To tell you the truth, I have no idea what a Whig stands for, I'll need to look that up. What I do know is that Obama is not even remotely a fascist.
Fascism is the elevation of the State at the expense of the individual. The current Democratic vision is the elevation of the State to protect the lifestyle of the indolent individual. They're just not the same at all.
I think people throw around words like socialism, communism and fascism because that's what they're familiar with and it's easy, as if politics is a one-dimensional line going from right to left. It's really an N-dimensional space dealing with property rights, the environment, fiscal policy, taxes, sexual freedom ...
Leave all the left-right classification to the MSM. One dimension is about as much as they can handle, the poor things. If you want to really discuss just how to classify this politican or that, you'll need to be a little more sophisticated.
Me, I'm thinking of dropping the Mussolini analogy for President Obama. I'm leaning more towards a Bourbon Dauphin.
Bourbon? Well, if oyu're offering!
ReplyDeleteoyu're? You've had too much already, buddy. I'm cutting you off!
ReplyDeleteHumm, for the most part, The Whig's eventually became the Republicans, so I just don't see the comparison.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the President knows enough to be a fascist, socialist, or anything else, really.
ReplyDeleteI would call him a Tyro, elected by the Tyro constituency.
Kelly, you got me on the Whig info. I had no idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any issue with the fact that a lot of Whigs became Republicans: I think you'll find that the Republicans of the 1870s have no particular ideological connection with the Republicans of today, other than the name. Same with the Democrats, for that matter. Just within my lifetime, it seems to me that the Democrats and Republicans have swapped positions on a bunch of issues. The world changes, issues come and go in importance, parties evolve to match, and I think it is a capital error to get too hung up on the name of the party, rather than on what they stand for at the present moment.
ReplyDeleteMore like a Bourbon Douche-fan.
ReplyDeleteSecular, I had to look up tyro. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary!
ReplyDelete