Mr. N, you're one of my favorite thinkers and commentators on politics and society, and I hate to challenge you, but I will here.
In the video released by the White House,
Joe Biden is a mandrill;
Chuck Schumer is a zebra:
Hillary Clinton is a warthog;
The Obamas are apes.
Is only the last of these racist? If so, why?
When the Lord of the Rings films were released, some people called them racist because of how they portrayed Orcs, creatures allied with the evil and powerful Sauron. Jonah Goldberg responded thus:
"Sigh. Okay, yes, it’s true. Many of the Orcs (and the super-Orcs) are dark-skinned and have slant-eyes. They are also — how shall I put this? — Orcs! Ya frickin’ idjit!
"One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people — like me — who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, 'Cool, Orcs!' On the other hand we have people . . . who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim 'black people!' Maybe [they] should spend less time vetting movies for signs of racism and more time vetting [themselves] if, that is, [they free-associate] black people with these subhuman monsters."
I humbly but firmly propose that if one sees Joe Biden portrayed as a mandrill and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; sees Chuck Schumer portrayed as a zebra and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; and sees Hillary Clinton portrayed as a warthog and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; but sees the Obamas portrayed as apes and does consider that portrayal racist, then whatever may have been in the minds of the people who created, approved, and posted the video, his accusation of racism might best be directed within. Or as Bo Diddley once sang: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
With the greatest respect, as well as regret: Submitted.
Jay wrote: “ Trump is a Putin admirer who practices a dark politics. He has a lot more in common with George Wallace—and Henry Wallace, for that matter—than he does with Reagan and Buckley.”
George Wallace as governor of Alabama attempted to defy Federal law. If he has a parallel in today’s politics, it is perhaps Minnesota Governor Tim Walz or Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey - not Donald Trump.
As for Henry Wallace, he was a fellow traveler of the Communist Party. In 1948 he ran for President on the “Progressive” ticket. The CPUSA did not nominate a candidate of its own, endorsing Henry Wallace instead. Wallace did not repudiate the Communist endorsement. If Henry Wallace has a parallel in today’s politics, it is Zohran Momdani - not Donald Trump.
And to say that “Trump’s economic outlook is more Perón than Friedman” is similarly wrong. Perón was, like Walz or Mamdani, a man of the left who shook down private enterprise to favor his allies in the labor union movement.
Trump may not be a perfect economic libertarian, but he is soundly within the historically protectionist tradition of Henry Clay’s American System, and its successors in the post-Civil War Republican ascendancy through Grant, McKinley, Taft, Harding, and Coolidge. Indeed, such of Harding’s and Coolidge’s achievements as enacting the Mellon income tax rate cuts, the Fordney-McCumber tariff, and the Immigration Act of 1924, might well be characterized as Trumpism avant la letttre.
In a Propaganda Class in college, I learned about "Argumentum Ad Hominum". Translation: Argument Against the Man. I see and hear this applied frequently these days, more so by the Democratic Party's Liberal and Progressive Wing. When void of facts, said Dems (and Republicans can be guilty of this as well) attack the person rather than the person's views. This is done because the attacker can't sway anyone with logic and facts. As soon as someone begins to attack me personally, I know I've won the discussion or argument.
President Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America"—and he did. He returned the politics of race to the sweet, nougaty center of American life. Since then, this country has turned on itself, and President Trump, the reactionary, has exacerbated that tension. BLM and DEI affirmed the suspicion of many that it is not parity that the Far Left seeks but an inversion of power, where "People of Color" replace, by coercion and social manipulation, whites institutionally. A "white nationalist" administration now occupies the White House—go figure. Do you suppose the next Democrat administration is going to let bygones be bygones?
Wow! Thank you! And this, is why I continue to read you. I'm in the same camp. A Reagan and Buckley conservative that fits into no party. 2016 made me an Independent. I have a lot of friends on the Left, who are also politically homeless. There are more of us in the wild than it appears. I have met them.
1. Every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime has been called a racist by the left.
2. "The governmental control of the privately held means of production" is the definition of fascism I memorized in college.
3. Along the same vein, in discussions of the Middle East, I always admit, "I'm a Zionist," early on, since I'm going to be accus of being one eventually anyway. Saves time.
I think your definition of fascism is inadequate, Mr. Taggart. Because there is no single canonical source prescribing the core meaning of "fascism" comparable to the writings of Marx and Lenin for "communism" the term's definition needs to reflect both ideas frequently cited by governments of the interwar period that called themselves fascist and the practical policies and behaviors characteristic of those governments -- particularly the Axis powers.
"Government control of the privately held means of production" is certainly the core economic component of the "corporate state" model that fascists saw as a fundamental part of their state vision (though "corporate" went far beyond industrial/commercial dimensions). Hypernationalism and military mobilization for the protection and aggrandizement of the nation's defining ethnic group are two others. The major Axis states defined the state in terms of ethnic purity, prescribed the corporate-state model as its organizing principle, and built a military culture that could enforce policy domestically and project it internationally. All of these elements are components of fascism, and the more of them that are present in a state administration the more appropriate it is to term that administration as "fascist." There is no single litmus test.
I don't know how old you are, but I don't recall either Eisenhauer or Ford being called "racist" (I'm sure someone somewhere applied the term to them, as would also be true of every Democratic candidate.)
I'm with you on #3. I also think that no greater disaster has befallen Zionism since 1948 than the Netanyahu government.
I am glad to see that at least one other person knows what fascism really was. To the extent we have ever had something approaching fascism in the U.S., it was FDR’s New Deal.
It may have been “warmed over Wilsonisn” but Wilson was never able to implement in a lasting way. FDR succeeded where Wilson failed. See Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals.”
Good work Jay. I think we have passed peak wokeness (maybe 2-5 years) as far as the Identarian shame game, though a somewhat less specific is the overuse of hyperbole. In the group I administer on Facebook, Intelligent Conversations Between Liberals and Conservatives (shameless plug, but we could use some intelligent conservatives), I also emphasize avoidance of hyperbole - which includes racist but also fascist, genocide, anti Semitism. If your argument is sound than understatement should be the modus, not dumping the tabasco in with negative descriptors - guilt by association. I find on the left there is a lot of argument by name calling, on the right, at least MAGA, just outright making things up. I always encourage neutral language so that one can't guess your politics easily. Once somebody starts with corporatist or globalism you know they are more about bumper stickers than intelligent conversation.
Perfection. Writing exactly what you feel like writing exactly when you feel like writing it. THAT is why I read you. Never knowing what's coming next. Best,
Me thinks political science says… you might be a racist, and I know you’re sick in the head beliefs will not work out well for you like any of your Deutsch Landers deceased bedfellows that sincerely used to believed that clap trap to their deepest inner minds, hearts and debased scientific souls…so go straight to the affirm or mentioned place and do not pass go
So say we all
Mr. N, you're one of my favorite thinkers and commentators on politics and society, and I hate to challenge you, but I will here.
In the video released by the White House,
Joe Biden is a mandrill;
Chuck Schumer is a zebra:
Hillary Clinton is a warthog;
The Obamas are apes.
Is only the last of these racist? If so, why?
When the Lord of the Rings films were released, some people called them racist because of how they portrayed Orcs, creatures allied with the evil and powerful Sauron. Jonah Goldberg responded thus:
"Sigh. Okay, yes, it’s true. Many of the Orcs (and the super-Orcs) are dark-skinned and have slant-eyes. They are also — how shall I put this? — Orcs! Ya frickin’ idjit!
"One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people — like me — who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, 'Cool, Orcs!' On the other hand we have people . . . who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim 'black people!' Maybe [they] should spend less time vetting movies for signs of racism and more time vetting [themselves] if, that is, [they free-associate] black people with these subhuman monsters."
(https://www.nationalreview.com/2003/01/movies-metaphors-jonah-goldberg/)
I humbly but firmly propose that if one sees Joe Biden portrayed as a mandrill and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; sees Chuck Schumer portrayed as a zebra and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; and sees Hillary Clinton portrayed as a warthog and doesn't consider that portrayal racist; but sees the Obamas portrayed as apes and does consider that portrayal racist, then whatever may have been in the minds of the people who created, approved, and posted the video, his accusation of racism might best be directed within. Or as Bo Diddley once sang: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
With the greatest respect, as well as regret: Submitted.
Very good column.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jay. That was excellent.
Thx, RB.
Jay wrote: “ Trump is a Putin admirer who practices a dark politics. He has a lot more in common with George Wallace—and Henry Wallace, for that matter—than he does with Reagan and Buckley.”
George Wallace as governor of Alabama attempted to defy Federal law. If he has a parallel in today’s politics, it is perhaps Minnesota Governor Tim Walz or Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey - not Donald Trump.
As for Henry Wallace, he was a fellow traveler of the Communist Party. In 1948 he ran for President on the “Progressive” ticket. The CPUSA did not nominate a candidate of its own, endorsing Henry Wallace instead. Wallace did not repudiate the Communist endorsement. If Henry Wallace has a parallel in today’s politics, it is Zohran Momdani - not Donald Trump.
And to say that “Trump’s economic outlook is more Perón than Friedman” is similarly wrong. Perón was, like Walz or Mamdani, a man of the left who shook down private enterprise to favor his allies in the labor union movement.
Trump may not be a perfect economic libertarian, but he is soundly within the historically protectionist tradition of Henry Clay’s American System, and its successors in the post-Civil War Republican ascendancy through Grant, McKinley, Taft, Harding, and Coolidge. Indeed, such of Harding’s and Coolidge’s achievements as enacting the Mellon income tax rate cuts, the Fordney-McCumber tariff, and the Immigration Act of 1924, might well be characterized as Trumpism avant la letttre.
In a Propaganda Class in college, I learned about "Argumentum Ad Hominum". Translation: Argument Against the Man. I see and hear this applied frequently these days, more so by the Democratic Party's Liberal and Progressive Wing. When void of facts, said Dems (and Republicans can be guilty of this as well) attack the person rather than the person's views. This is done because the attacker can't sway anyone with logic and facts. As soon as someone begins to attack me personally, I know I've won the discussion or argument.
President Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America"—and he did. He returned the politics of race to the sweet, nougaty center of American life. Since then, this country has turned on itself, and President Trump, the reactionary, has exacerbated that tension. BLM and DEI affirmed the suspicion of many that it is not parity that the Far Left seeks but an inversion of power, where "People of Color" replace, by coercion and social manipulation, whites institutionally. A "white nationalist" administration now occupies the White House—go figure. Do you suppose the next Democrat administration is going to let bygones be bygones?
We are ranting at our house too, and have been for years. What will it take??
Wow! Thank you! And this, is why I continue to read you. I'm in the same camp. A Reagan and Buckley conservative that fits into no party. 2016 made me an Independent. I have a lot of friends on the Left, who are also politically homeless. There are more of us in the wild than it appears. I have met them.
1. Every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime has been called a racist by the left.
2. "The governmental control of the privately held means of production" is the definition of fascism I memorized in college.
3. Along the same vein, in discussions of the Middle East, I always admit, "I'm a Zionist," early on, since I'm going to be accus of being one eventually anyway. Saves time.
I think your definition of fascism is inadequate, Mr. Taggart. Because there is no single canonical source prescribing the core meaning of "fascism" comparable to the writings of Marx and Lenin for "communism" the term's definition needs to reflect both ideas frequently cited by governments of the interwar period that called themselves fascist and the practical policies and behaviors characteristic of those governments -- particularly the Axis powers.
"Government control of the privately held means of production" is certainly the core economic component of the "corporate state" model that fascists saw as a fundamental part of their state vision (though "corporate" went far beyond industrial/commercial dimensions). Hypernationalism and military mobilization for the protection and aggrandizement of the nation's defining ethnic group are two others. The major Axis states defined the state in terms of ethnic purity, prescribed the corporate-state model as its organizing principle, and built a military culture that could enforce policy domestically and project it internationally. All of these elements are components of fascism, and the more of them that are present in a state administration the more appropriate it is to term that administration as "fascist." There is no single litmus test.
I don't know how old you are, but I don't recall either Eisenhauer or Ford being called "racist" (I'm sure someone somewhere applied the term to them, as would also be true of every Democratic candidate.)
I'm with you on #3. I also think that no greater disaster has befallen Zionism since 1948 than the Netanyahu government.
I am glad to see that at least one other person knows what fascism really was. To the extent we have ever had something approaching fascism in the U.S., it was FDR’s New Deal.
The New Deal was just warmed over Wilsonism.
It may have been “warmed over Wilsonisn” but Wilson was never able to implement in a lasting way. FDR succeeded where Wilson failed. See Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals.”
Good work Jay. I think we have passed peak wokeness (maybe 2-5 years) as far as the Identarian shame game, though a somewhat less specific is the overuse of hyperbole. In the group I administer on Facebook, Intelligent Conversations Between Liberals and Conservatives (shameless plug, but we could use some intelligent conservatives), I also emphasize avoidance of hyperbole - which includes racist but also fascist, genocide, anti Semitism. If your argument is sound than understatement should be the modus, not dumping the tabasco in with negative descriptors - guilt by association. I find on the left there is a lot of argument by name calling, on the right, at least MAGA, just outright making things up. I always encourage neutral language so that one can't guess your politics easily. Once somebody starts with corporatist or globalism you know they are more about bumper stickers than intelligent conversation.
Perfection. Writing exactly what you feel like writing exactly when you feel like writing it. THAT is why I read you. Never knowing what's coming next. Best,
Dan
Thx so much.
I have one question for Mr. Nordlinger: Is it racist to believe that there are biological race differences in intelligence?
HELL YES. And anyone that would believe such can go to the aforementioned place, the sooner, the better
In that case you are the enemy of everyone who takes scientific evidence seriously. I don't think that's going to work out well for you.
Me thinks political science says… you might be a racist, and I know you’re sick in the head beliefs will not work out well for you like any of your Deutsch Landers deceased bedfellows that sincerely used to believed that clap trap to their deepest inner minds, hearts and debased scientific souls…so go straight to the affirm or mentioned place and do not pass go
Very fine rant, Mr. Nordlinger.