How to Argue with a (Guilty) Liberal

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By Carey Roberts

Like a demanding and ill-mannered child, liberals are used to getting their way. Whenever they lapse into the losing side of an argument, they reflexively resort to name-calling and mud-slinging. Epithets like “neo-Nazi,” “crypto-fascist,” and “imperialist stooge” buzz like mosquitoes hovering over a Potomac swamp.

But how many conservatives who are targets of such slurs know these liberals are indulging in one of the greatest intellectual ruses in history? How many realize it’s a matter of the red-faced pot calling the kettle black?

Esteemed reader, you are about to learn the truth of the long-standing love affair between American progressivism and European fascism.

As Jonah Goldberg reveals in his bestseller Liberal Fascism, that romance can be traced back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. The Democrat was both a progressive and racist who famously wrote, “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation…until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”

Shortly after America entered World War I in 1917, Wilson signed an Executive Order establishing the Committee on Public Information, a propaganda apparatus designed to whip Americans into a patriotic fervor. The following year Wilson pushed for the Sedition Act which banned the use of any “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government. That sweeping language served to squelch all forms of political dissent.

The notorious Sedition Act occasioned the arrest of an estimated 175,000 Americans accused of essentially failing to be sufficiently patriotic – leading Goldberg to dub the Wilson presidency a “fascist police state.”

For those who wonder whether the phrase “liberal fascist” is a little over the top, in fact it was coined by science fiction novelist H.G. Wells. In 1932 the progressivist Wells delivered a speech that called for a revitalization of the fading liberal movement: “the Fascists of Liberalism must…begin as a disciplined sect, but they must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

Wells was also a friend and confidante of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Struggling to rescue America from the dregs of the Great Depression, FDR was fully aware of what was transpiring in Europe and sought to emulate its accomplishments. Roosevelt once bragged, “what we are doing in this country were some of things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.”

European fascists returned the presidential compliment. In 1934 the Nazi Party’s official newspaper sang the praises of FDR, describing him as a “warm-hearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs.” And the Fuhrer himself sent Roosevelt a private letter applauding his “heroic efforts in the interests of the American people.”

Mussolini was even more enthralled with the American commander. Upon reading Roosevelt’s Looking Forward, Mussolini fawned, “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.”

Il Duce was of course referring to the sweeping New Deal policies that established massive job programs, centralized power in vast government bureaucracies, and imposed rigid price controls on the economy.

But the ugliest chapter in the progressive-fascist alliance centered on eugenics, the pseudo-science of racial purification. Three prominent persons, all of the liberal persuasion, were prominent flag-wavers in this execrable episode of American history.

Woodrow Wilson was one of the first American politicians to promote eugenic policies. As governor of New Jersey, Wilson approved a law in 1912 that created the Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was another progressive icon of the era. Holmes wrote the flawed Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell that put the legal stamp of approval on compulsory sterilization. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Holmes infamously wrote.

A few years later in 1934 the American Eugenics Society published the Case for Sterilization, a book that piqued the interest of the Fuhrer himself. One leading member of the American Eugenics Society was Margaret Sanger. The birth-control crusader was the moving force behind the Negro Project, which enlisted ministers such as Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. in the crusade to restrict reproduction among “inferior” stocks of Blacks.

So fellow conservatives, arise! The next time you are slandered as a proto-Nazi or angry White male (which in the liberal mind are one and the same), drag out the fascist skeletons rattling in the progressive closet. Mention Woodrow Wilson’s infatuation with racial cleansing, the FDR-Hitler mutual admiration society, Justice Holmes’ authorship of Buck v. Bell, and Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project.

If that doesn’t stop the guilty-minded liberal in his tracks, mention how progressive-inspired eugenics policies were the prime moving force behind the forced sterilization of 400,000 undesirables in Nazi Germany.

That inconvenient truth is certain to focus the discussion.

| More from Carey Roberts

Stumble It!

Share/Save/Bookmark

How to survive the coming food shortage.

8 Responses to “How to Argue with a (Guilty) Liberal”

  1. 1
    Amfortas Says:

    Not that we are criticising Americans, of course, who keeps right on electing them. Is it any wonder that much of the rest of the world has a problem or two with the US.

    Still, we grow; we develop; we advance. Sometimes. In God we Trust, because we darn well don’t trust Politicians.

  2. 2
    Berl Goetz Says:

    While it may be true that American leftists have a view of government that is reminiscent of fascist governments, we can thank goodness that they are largely pacifist military-haters! We don’t want these people to be militants!

  3. 3
    paul Says:

    Although what you write is illuminating you do tend to confuse ‘liberal’ with ‘Democrat’. Hence the reference to various USA presidents. Liberals at the moment tend to group around the Democrats but at other times may have grouped around the Republicans. For sure Liberals (and even Democratic President) have no problem with Lincoln. It is true that the accusation of being fascist is one hurled back and forth between ‘left’ and ‘right’. There is an example of this above. However, here I thought our concern was Men’s rights. We (or rather you as I don’t live in the USA) have just had eight years of a Republican presidency. If you consider this to be conservative and non liberal then feminism should have vanished (or at least diminished) under the influence of Bush. Does the fact that this did not happen give you any reason for a moments reflection? I think probably you are a right wing polemicist rather than an MRA. I don’t think the two things are the same and it may be unhelpful to try and make them so.

  4. 4
    Ray Says:

    How you can claim that “Liberals” are used to getting their way when since 1980 the country has been a hard path to the conservatism? Starting with Reagan and the Moral Majority, Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc etc. The alleged Liberal slant of the country is at best amusing. The only reason the Democrats have the majorities in the house and senate is that many in the South have campaigned on religious values not liberal principles. President Obama is far from having a rubber stamp congress and the GOP have yet to offer one alternative to solve the issues set aflame by decades of neglect.

    Conservatives aren’t name calling? are you kidding me? Bringing guns to town hall sessions designed for public discussion isn’t fascist?

  5. 5
    John Says:

    Don’t forget that FDR allowed Americans of Japanese decent to be put into internment camps and deprived them of their liberty for no other reason than their ethnicity!

  6. 6
    Mrs. Pilgrim Says:

    Ray asks: “Bringing guns to town hall sessions designed for public discussion isn’t fascist?”

    Well, sir, I hate to disturb your comfortable illusions about politics, but the men who’ve brought those guns have done so as an act of personal liberty, not as advocates of government control. Quite the contrary; as the one gent wished to remind the “guest of honor”, the people still retain the right to “water the tree of liberty” if it comes down to that necessity. An act, sir, of independence, not government control!

    How exercising one’s personal, non-government-based rights is a “fascist” act is beyond me. Perhaps you need to look up the word “fascist.”

    You also state that “[t]he only reason the Democrats have the majorities in the house and senate is that many in the South have campaigned on religious values not liberal principles.” Balderdash. The only reason why Democrats have majorities is because the voters no longer believe that the Republicans are the true representatives of liberty; enough of them voted independent, or didn’t vote at all, that the Democrats won pretty much by default. (And I daresay that the “rubber stamp” has been withheld from Mr. Obama’s grasp because Congress realizes that the people do not want fascism–probably partly to do with that “guns at town-halls” business. They’re waking up to the reality that we’re not afraid of them…)

    Sir, you need to sort out your facts.

  7. 7
    Amfortas Says:

    I can attest to the voting for Independants, Mrs Pilgrim. I stood for the Presidency on the ‘Durn Furriner’ Ticket. I had ‘Vote 1 AMFORTAS signs all over the place and got 49 write-in votes. :) I came in just behind John McCain.

  8. 8
    Samhaine Says:

    Wait, there are guilty liberals? This is news to me.

Leave a Reply

International Mens Day and Fathers Day in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden

Search MND

Introducing MRm: A New Men's Rights Magazine in PDF format

Download PDF Here

Support Our Sponsors!

Please support MND

Subscribe today:

SUSTAINER: $5/mo.


CONTRIBUTOR: $20/mo.


SUPPORTER: $50/mo.


Or Donate Any Amount

Archives

privacy policy | terms of service


Site Meter

MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!