What's the point in denying that there are some lefties out there that have Nazi uniforms and shit? Of course there are. I don't think it's indicative of any movement or universal trend on The Left. I think it'd be rediculous to assert that it is, any more then it would be plausable to assert that The Right(tm) is full of authoritians and facists based on a bunch of the uneducated meatheads where I live. (Some of which, too, subscribe to nazi propaganda, so...?)

To be fair this is mostly the extremists. But my real issue here is that the extremists have really become far too influential within the Democratic party. Theyre going to have to do something serious about it before they will get people like me back.

I was a registered democrat all the way through the 2000 election and had to leave. I know a lot of people like me who also had to leave. And the people who now count themselves as democrats I knew were people who had declared themselves "anarchists" or 'greens' or 'marxists' 4 years earlier.

Things have been a lot less insane lately, but I still feel extremely wary. I definitely won't be supporting that side until I see the crazies have either been reined in or cut off.

Quote from: Thanatos02What's the point in denying that there are some lefties out there that have Nazi uniforms and shit? Of course there are. I don't think it's indicative of any movement or universal trend on The Left. I think it'd be rediculous to assert that it is, any more then it would be plausable to assert that The Right(tm) is full of authoritians and facists based on a bunch of the uneducated meatheads where I live. (Some of which, too, subscribe to nazi propaganda, so...?)

The right has to carry the albatross of the Nazis because the Nazis were perceived as a right-wing movement (because of their militarism and nationalism, even though there are those who argue that "National Socialism" was an expression of socialism + nationalism), so when the right starts sounding too nationalistic, militaristic, or authoritarian or if people on the right start talking like racists, the specter of Naziism is automatically raised -- and that's a good thing.  It makes that path unattractive to all but the loons and keeps the mainstream from getting too cozy with the loons.  Many on the left, on the other hand, like to fancy themselves as being inherently good and incapable of racism or murder and tend to disassociate their politics from the murderous movements on the left, be it Mao and Pol Pot or the Red Army and the Weathermen.  Those murderous and violent movements are every bit as much expressions of left-wing extremism as the Nazis were expressions of right wing extremism, and the left taking ownership of them and responsibility for them would be a good thing, just as the right taking ownership of and responsibility for Naziism is a good thing, even if neither side likes the unflattering comparisons.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTo be fair this is mostly the extremists. But my real issue here is that the extremists have really become far too influential within the Democratic party.

And before someone complains about how influential the extremists are in the Republican Party, consider the likely victory of John McCain as the Republican nominee and consider that neither Bush, nor Dole, were darlings of the far right.  Yes, the mainstream press likes to make it sound like the Christian Right or talk radio bogeymen control the Republican Party but if you believe that, then explain how McCain seems to be winning the nomination (or how either Bush or Bob Dole got the nomination, for that matter -- the far right didn't like any of them).

Oh shit.

I sat here and typed for 40 minutes with a nuanced reaction to your post. It was thoughtful and qualified, and shit. I was two letters from hitting 'Submit' when a fluke at work erased the whole thing.

I mostly agree that groups ought to be on gaurd. I don't think that 'the right' needs to shoulder all the gaurd for Nazi extremism, but I do agree that organized political parties ought to reign extremist bullshit in. Violent and unqualifed rhetoric doesn't do anyone any good. But I'm not sure how much we need to own people who self-identify as being in a group but maintain insultingly stupid opinions besides saying, "I hope we can agree that basement-dwelling mouthbreather isn't with either of us."

Quote from: Thanatos02But I'm not sure how much we need to own people who self-identify as being in a group but maintain insultingly stupid opinions besides saying, "I hope we can agree that basement-dwelling mouthbreather isn't with either of us."

I think it's useful to understand why those "basement-dwelling mouthbreather" self-identify as left-wing or right wing, understand what sort of role they can work themselves in to if the group they identify with gets real power, and to acknowledge that such people are lurking in the shadows of both sides.  For example, racists groups that self-identify as right-wing do actively try to infiltrate non-racist right-wing political sites for the purpose of propaganda and recruitment.  Their activities range from posting lots of articles about horrible crimes with a black perpetrator and white victim or victims to more overtly racist observations.  But because the right has had to self-police against the appearance of racism, they are often quickly identified and told they are unwelcome.

Quote from: John MorrowI think it's useful to understand why those "basement-dwelling mouthbreather" self-identify as left-wing or right wing, understand what sort of role they can work themselves in to if the group they identify with gets real power, and to acknowledge that such people are lurking in the shadows of both sides.

Yeah, I agree with this. And I can't speak for forums and the like, but I know that my friends and I really brook none of that bullshit when we're dealing with people. Politically, we tend towards the extreme left, but I like to think we're rational about it. The loudmouth that used to hang out with us is shunned for being a confrontational jerk, but even he's dedicated to non-violent political solutions.

Quote from: John MorrowMany on the left, on the other hand, like to fancy themselves as being inherently good and incapable of racism or murder and tend to disassociate their politics from the murderous movements on the left, be it Mao and Pol Pot or the Red Army and the Weathermen.  Those murderous and violent movements are every bit as much expressions of left-wing extremism as the Nazis were expressions of right wing extremism, and the left taking ownership of them and responsibility for them would be a good thing, just as the right taking ownership of and responsibility for Naziism is a good thing, even if neither side likes the unflattering comparisons.

Typically, both the right and the left use Nazism as the very definition of evil -- to the point that drawing any similarity to Hitler is considered abusive and reduces discussion to flamewars (cf. Godwin's law).  Within the mainstream, I don't think either side take ownership or responsibility for any sort of evil -- which is just a fact of life, I think.  

The right tend to attack the left with insults like "feminazis" (citing strident ideology as drowning out opposing voices like early Nazi propaganda) or "surrender monkeys" (likening anything less than open war as appeasement like what allowed Hitler to gain momentum).  The left tend to attack the right with insults like "fascist pigs" (for police overriding of civil liberties), or for persecution of minorities like homosexuals.  

Nazism is rightly villified, but at this point I think it is overdone to the point that Nazis are portrayed as inhuman bogeymen rather than an understandable philosophy.  Conversely, Stalin and Pol Pot should certainly be classified as being just as evil as Hitler.  However, in popular thought they are not -- mostly because many people simply aren't aware of them.  Both of these are bad, I think.  

Since Nazis are portrayed as such overblown evil, it means that we only get tritely obvious lessons from them (i.e. "racism bad").  Conversely, since Stalin and Pol Pot are often ignored, we also don't get many lesson from their example either.

Quote from: jhkimTypically, both the right and the left use Nazism as the very definition of evil -- to the point that drawing any similarity to Hitler is considered abusive and reduces discussion to flamewars (cf. Godwin's law).  Within the mainstream, I don't think either side take ownership or responsibility for any sort of evil -- which is just a fact of life, I think.

Then why is it, as you point out later, that the right tends to get called "fascists" (the Nazis were fascists)?  (And, no,
"feminazi" isn't really the equivalent for a variety of reasons I can go into if you really want.)

Quote from: jhkimNazism is rightly villified, but at this point I think it is overdone to the point that Nazis are portrayed as inhuman bogeymen rather than an understandable philosophy.  Conversely, Stalin and Pol Pot should certainly be classified as being just as evil as Hitler.  However, in popular thought they are not -- mostly because many people simply aren't aware of them.  Both of these are bad, I think.

Why is it that people simply aren't aware of them?  Why is McCarthy seen as a worse villain than the spies who actually did give atomic secrets to the Soviet Union?  Why are the Contras considered the bad guys of the 80s when opinions in Nicaragua are far less one-sided?  Who decided that Hitler was a bigger monster than Stalin or Mao and why?  Why is Castro cool and Pinochet a villain?  

Quote from: jhkimSince Nazis are portrayed as such overblown evil, it means that we only get tritely obvious lessons from them (i.e. "racism bad").  Conversely, since Stalin and Pol Pot are often ignored, we also don't get many lesson from their example either.

I think that the lessons that seem obvious now were not so obvious during the rise of the Nazis, just as the horrors of WW1 that led to people hoping that it would be The War to End All Wars were not so obvious at the beginning, when cities held parades to celebrate their country's entry into the war.  Those things are obvious in retrospect because people know the history.  And because Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and even the atrocities of Castro and T-shirt icon Che Guevara are ignored and unknown people are missing quite a few other lessons that should make some other things obvious.

Quote from: John MorrowThen why is it, as you point out later, that the right tends to get called "fascists" (the Nazis were fascists)?  (And, no,
"feminazi" isn't really the equivalent for a variety of reasons I can go into if you really want.)

As I said, calling someone a nazi or comparing them to nazis is a relatively common insult regardless of politics -- and usually empty of any intelligent content.  While it is an insult used against the right wing, the mainstream right-wing does not accept responsibility for what the nazis did -- nor should they.  

No one likes being compared to nazis.  (Well, OK, some neo-nazis might, but they are a bizarre fringe on the political scene.)  If you call a typical right-wing advocate a nazi, he will resent that and deny a connection -- usually claiming that instead right-wing policies were responsible for the defeat of nazism.  

And yes, I'm sure you have some reason for dismissing "feminazi" as being just good fun, while "fascist pig" is a deadly serious insult.  I'd be happy to hear about it.  

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is it that people simply aren't aware of them?  Why is McCarthy seen as a worse villain than the spies who actually did give atomic secrets to the Soviet Union?  Why are the Contras considered the bad guys of the 80s when opinions in Nicaragua are far less one-sided?  Who decided that Hitler was a bigger monster than Stalin or Mao and why?  Why is Castro cool and Pinochet a villain?

No single person or group decided for everyone that Hitler was a bigger monster than Stalin or Mao.  It came about that way in popular imagination, I suspect more because Hitler was the monster we fought than anything else.  As for the grab bag of other topics you mention, obviously there is bias in how people judge atrocities according to their politics.  

I don't claim the mainstream left-wing bias is correct -- just that the both the left-wing and the right-wing are biased.  My point was to deny your claim that the right-wing accepted responsibility for Nazi atrocities.  They do not and should not.  

The Nazis are universally hated villains within the U.S. at this point.  Other atrocities are perceived differently, however, depending on politics.  The politically conservative tend to not focus on atrocities by Americans of the past or their allies, because they want to promote an image of past generations as a model to be emulated.  The politically liberal tend to not focus on atrocities that result from social change such as communist revolutions, because they want to promote an image of social change as a good thing.  

Neither of these are very rational, and may often be subconscious rather than intentional.  For the most part, people agree that atrocities are bad -- but logically, that a regime committed atrocities does not mean that the other tenets of a regime were all wrong.  The French Revolution was horrible, but that doesn't invalidate democratic revolution more generally, or the metric system.  

I think for the most part the sort of duelling over which atrocities should be most emphasized is a pointless endeavor which has little to do with the practical differences between political parties.

Quote from: jhkimAs I said, calling someone a nazi or comparing them to nazis is a relatively common insult regardless of politics -- and usually empty of any intelligent content.  While it is an insult used against the right wing, the mainstream right-wing does not accept responsibility for what the nazis did -- nor should they.

While I agree that "Nazi" can be used as an insult empty of intelligent content (e.g., Limbaugh's "Feminazi" label, more on that in a moment), I do think that there some specific triggers that tend to give the label more credibility and content, among those anti-semitism, white racism, nationalism, militarism, and offensive warfare.

Quote from: jhkimNo one likes being compared to nazis.  (Well, OK, some neo-nazis might, but they are a bizarre fringe on the political scene.)  If you call a typical right-wing advocate a nazi, he will resent that and deny a connection -- usually claiming that instead right-wing policies were responsible for the defeat of nazism.

The current right-wing is that fascism was actually a left-wing movement, since Mussolini started out as a socialist and the Nazis were "National Socialists".  And while I don't deny that there is some defensiveness, especially when the label is misused and empty of any intelligent content, but it has also been my experience that the right does self-police itself, to at least some degree, when the rhetoric or trappings start appearing too Nazi-like, it not actually Nazi.  The left, on the other hand, does not seem to recoil at rhetoric that sounds too Stalin-like or Mao-like.   Matthew Fox, for example, has a line of Mao's poetry tattooed on his arm.  You can argue that Mao's poetry was beautiful.  Hitler was a painter, too, but nobody is in a rush to own a print or tattoo some of his writing on his arm and they would be ostracized if they did.  Where's they, "That guy killed tens of millions of innocent people!" reaction?  And then there is the ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt, despite the fact that he was a murderous thug.  

Quote from: jhkimAnd yes, I'm sure you have some reason for dismissing "feminazi" as being just good fun, while "fascist pig" is a deadly serious insult.  I'd be happy to hear about it.

The term "Feminazi" is "empty of any intelligent content" when it comes to any point-by-point comparison to real Nazis.  When the term "fascist pig" is tossed toward the right, however, I think there are often some actual points of comparison and/or a belief that there is some actual comparison.  When my left-wing co-workers living in New York City called Rudy Giuliani and his police force "Nazis", it seemed very much as if they actually believed there was a real and literal comparison there, while I doubt many of Limbaugh's listener, or Limbaugh himself, believe there is such a direct comparison between Nazis and the feminists that he's putting down.  In other words, I think the people I've heard call various people and policies on the right "Nazis" believe that they are making a comment with some intelligent content and a real comparison while I think Limbaugh was largely trying to push feminist buttons and get them upset.

Quote from: jhkimNo single person or group decided for everyone that Hitler was a bigger monster than Stalin or Mao.  It came about that way in popular imagination, I suspect more because Hitler was the monster we fought than anything else.

Well, in theory we fought Stalin and Mao, too.  That's what the whole Cold War was about.  

But sometime during the Cold War, the left decided to romanticize, defend, and excuse traitors and spies that slipped nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, started advocating unilateral disarmament, started taking the Soviet Union's side on issues like KAL 007 (a documentary made during the period that suggests the US government was to blame is still out there and was recently shown), and still makes apologies for the Soviet Union.  Given that the people of Nicaragua are split over the Contras and Sandinistas, why is it that most Americans have been led to believe that the Contras were the bad guys even though the Sandinistas did some pretty nasty things?  Why is Pinochet bad and Castro good, even though both were responsible for a roughly even number of deaths and Pinochet actually turned his government back over to a democratic system.  Why were Vietnam-era protesters carrying North Vietnamese flags and rooting Ho Chi Minh on?  And even today, why doesn't the left seem interested in ending the human rights disaster that is North Korea?  

Why is that relevant?  See below.

Quote from: jhkimI don't claim the mainstream left-wing bias is correct -- just that the both the left-wing and the right-wing are biased.  My point was to deny your claim that the right-wing accepted responsibility for Nazi atrocities.  They do not and should not.

I think the right should take responsibility for the Nazis to the extent that they should acknowledge that the Nazis (and also Fundamentalist Islamic regimes, too) represent what many right-wing ideas look like if implemented in an extreme form.  I think the left should take responsibility for communism to the extent that they should acknowledge that the communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, and North Korea represent what many left-wing ideas look like if implemented in an extreme form.  To my knowledge, there is no room on the right for someone putting a happy face on the Nazis and trying to defend them or improve their image.  The left needs to stop tolerating people who put a happy face on Stalin, Mao, the North Vietnamese (who tortured John McCain, which is why he takes the issue so seriously), Castro, Che Guevara, the French Revolution, and so on.

Quote from: jhkimThe Nazis are universally hated villains within the U.S. at this point.  Other atrocities are perceived differently, however, depending on politics.  The politically conservative tend to not focus on atrocities by Americans of the past or their allies, because they want to promote an image of past generations as a model to be emulated.  The politically liberal tend to not focus on atrocities that result from social change such as communist revolutions, because they want to promote an image of social change as a good thing.

I think that is largely correct, but I think that people are far more often exposed to atrocities by Americans of the past or their allies, as well as Americans of today (e.g., Abu Ghraib) than they are exposed to the atrocities that result from social change such as communist revolutions.  In fact, most revolutions of any sort end badly.  America's revolution was an exception, not the norm.

Quote from: jhkimNeither of these are very rational, and may often be subconscious rather than intentional.  For the most part, people agree that atrocities are bad -- but logically, that a regime committed atrocities does not mean that the other tenets of a regime were all wrong.  The French Revolution was horrible, but that doesn't invalidate democratic revolution more generally, or the metric system.

No, but the French Revolution does invalidate the sort of rip tradition out by the roots change and subversion of democracy in the name of reform that's still quite in vogue among many on the left.  Why, for example, is the American left so dependent to the idea of using (undemocratic) courts and bureaucrats to achieve their objectives rather than going through democratic means?  Heck, why does the Democratic Party have "super delegates" at all?

Quote from: jhkimI think for the most part the sort of duelling over which atrocities should be most emphasized is a pointless endeavor which has little to do with the practical differences between political parties.

I think what I'm talking about is relevant to the extent that each party polices it's extremes.  There are certainly racists and neo-Nazis lurking in the shadows of the right and who likely vote Republican if they vote at all.  And there are certainly extreme elements of the religious right.  Yet for all the fear raised by the mainstream media over right-wing extremists (and perhaps, to at least some degree, because of it), the Republicans almost always nominate one of the most moderate candidates and marginalize the extremes.  There are not similar warnings about the extremists on the left, in particular the overtly anti-American wing of the left.  And it's that wing that keeps the Democrats from winning elections.  

This goes back to Abyssal Maw's comment:

Quote from: Abyssal MawTo be fair this is mostly the extremists. But my real issue here is that the extremists have really become far too influential within the Democratic party. Theyre going to have to do something serious about it before they will get people like me back.

I was a registered democrat all the way through the 2000 election and had to leave. I know a lot of people like me who also had to leave. And the people who now count themselves as democrats I knew were people who had declared themselves "anarchists" or 'greens' or 'marxists' 4 years earlier.

Things have been a lot less insane lately, but I still feel extremely wary. I definitely won't be supporting that side until I see the crazies have either been reined in or cut off.

Why don't I think that either Hillary or Obama are going to win the main election?  Because the far left is going to force them to say things about the war, race, gender, and a host of other issues that are going to sour mainstream Americans or their base on them.  When someone asks Obama, "Do you support reparations for black Americans for slavery?" what can he say that won't alienate half of his support?  And Hillary is desperately trying to be the sort of moderate that McCain is and it's causing her base to abandon her because she's not extreme enough for them.  And the irony of the Democratic Party talking about having their nominee chosen by unelected "super delegates" is amazing.

Quote from: John MorrowI think what I'm talking about is relevant to the extent that each party polices it's extremes.  There are certainly racists and neo-Nazis lurking in the shadows of the right and who likely vote Republican if they vote at all.  And there are certainly extreme elements of the religious right.  Yet for all the fear raised by the mainstream media over right-wing extremists (and perhaps, to at least some degree, because of it), the Republicans almost always nominate one of the most moderate candidates and marginalize the extremes.  There are not similar warnings about the extremists on the left, in particular the overtly anti-American wing of the left.  And it's that wing that keeps the Democrats from winning elections.

The thing is, I hear much the same thing from more liberal-leaning folk, claiming that the Republican party is full of "extremists" as opposed to the more centrist Democrats.  

It's rather obviously a function of personal bias, in my opinion.  A given person tends to think of their own position as the center -- i.e. what "normal" people think.  Thus, to them, the opposing party is full of extremes that are way off from the center.

...Like I said - they're likely pessimists.

America is probably more progressive than people tend to give it credit for.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, I hear much the same thing from more liberal-leaning folk, claiming that the Republican party is full of "extremists" as opposed to the more centrist Democrats.

I assume these are the same folks that consider Hillary a sell-out?

Quote from: jhkimIt's rather obviously a function of personal bias, in my opinion.  A given person tends to think of their own position as the center -- i.e. what "normal" people think.  Thus, to them, the opposing party is full of extremes that are way off from the center.

I don't think that my position is the center and have never claimed it was.  My assessment isn't based on what I think but on what the people in the middle seem to think based on their statements and votes.  I've heard more than a few Democrats who expressed that they wouldn't really mind if John McCain won the Presidency because they consider him a moderate.  The only people on the right that I've heard talking about voting for Hillary or Obama are people like Ann Coulter, who consider McCain so far to the left that they might was well just vote for the Democrat.  And there haven't been enough of those extremists that supposedly fill the Republican Party to stop McCain, despite a full all out attack by conservative talk radio to stop him.  That suggests to me that all but the most biased extremists are capable of recognizing the middle when they see it, regardless of their own biases and whether they agree or not.