General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen will democrats make concerted effort to equate "conservatism" to "fascism"?
Rethugs have done an enviable job in tying "liberalism" to something bad, deplorable and anti-american to such as extent that many democrats run away from being called liberal. I think it is time to make conservatism as bad, anti-american and anti-twenty-first century. It should be tied tightly to fascism and autocracy.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)I seriously doubt they want to do that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Too many Democrats claim to be socialists although the party is not the least bit so.
And single-payer IS socialized health care.
starroute
(12,977 posts)Single payer, like Medicare, would be a government-run insurance system.
Socialized health care is when the government owns the hospitals, pays the doctors -- the whole nine yards. Nobody's even talking about that in this country, so far as I know.
I also wonder why you say, "Too many Democrats claim to be socialists," since that not my experience. Can you give any examples of Democratic politicians or active supporters who make that claim?
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)But your other point is a better one.
We can't have a single-payer system without cost controls. Kill the doc fix NOW to start. Medicare will soak this country of all its competitiveness without a cap on costs.
Our dying elderly cost up to 1/3 of medical costs in their waning months. That must stop. Mature countries deal with it - we don't.
starroute
(12,977 posts)And I don't agree with you at all about killing the doc fix -- which would simply make it impossible for people on Medicare to get treatment. The benefit of single payer -- essentially universal Medicare -- is that adding a lot of younger people to the rolls would go a long way towards handling the cost problem.
But I'll agree about the dying elderly. The doctors spent a month trying to fine-tune my 93 year old father's heart rhythms before they admitted his congestive heart failing was finally catching up with him. And even then, they couldn't send him to a hospice because Medicare doesn't cover that, so they send him for rehab at a nursing home until he got sick enough to be allowed back into the hospital.
It was unnecessarily brutal all around, and though I stuck the bills away without looking at them, I'm sure the total was shocking. There have to be better ways to handle end-of-life care.
zbdent
(35,392 posts)on July 4th in an odd-numbered year on Mars ...
starroute
(12,977 posts)Back in the late 40s and 50s, there were plenty of people on the right who had a history of having been fascist sympathizers or enablers before the war -- but the right was very successful in making it impossible to talk about any of that.
I suspect this was one of the real objectives of McCarthyism. It made even indirect connections to communism by anyone on the left so toxic that it both dulled the impact of the old fascist ties on the right and made the left scared to bring them up for fear of McCarthyite retaliation.
If you look at magazines and political cartoons of the period, for example, you find that certain sorts of things were being discussed quite frankly during the Truman years, but just sort of disappeared from the discourse around the time of the 1952 election.
Even when the John Birch Society sprang up at the end of the 50s, it managed to launder the fascist origins of its pet conspiracy theories (like by going through and substituting the word "bankers" for "Jews" and pass as home-grown right-wing nutjobs instead of outright fascists.
Libertarianism has also been a useful "beard" for the right, in that it's pro-capitalism but also undeniably anti-totalitarianism. They're just careful not to let any actual libertarians get their hands on real power.
Given 60 years of obfuscation, it would be almost impossible at this point to go back and make a case for the fascist roots of present-day conservatism. They're there, but they're as well-buried as Jimmy Hoffa.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Up until then, they will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Republicans in creating the "legal" authorization for the police state, funding the development of surveillance, data mining and "preemptive law enforcement" technologies and creating the atmosphere in which these are trained upon the restive 99% and other undesirables.
BeaufortPenguin
(60 posts)They ARE the sasme thing.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)The democrats seem to want in on the facism too, only a tiny bit less than the repukes.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There are fascist schools of thought on the right and the left, and libertarian schools of thought on the right and left, and most Americans are somewhat moderate with streaks of libertarianism.
Fascism is state control of the average life, which can be accomplished by any group that takes over a government.
It might be more accurate and truthful to point out that the US seems to be slowly drifting into banana-republic territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
One thing about a banana republic is that the poor generally have the freedom to live their lives, if they can. I see our government as going that way.
brooklynite
(94,737 posts)While there are certainly Republican leaders who support authoritarian principles, the average Republican voter does not. To them, conservatism mean simply a reaction against Government activity that they feel interferes in their personal lives and offers no appreciable benefits. Telling them that they are supporters of Fascism is an easy way to lose their votes forever.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)given the evidence of this post!