Understanding the Progressive/Communist vs. Fascist Split in American Politics: Part II

NOTE: This is part two of a revised post I originally wrote for The Rio Norte Line.  Just like part one, this is written for the serious student of American history and for those who really want to understand modern American politics. Due to the nature of the subject and amount of information I have to provide in order to make my argument, brevity isn’t possible.  All I can ask is that you read it through without skimming over anything.  Please understand that this post conveys only part of the information you need to fully understand what I am trying to help you see and understand. In a very real sense, this post comes in at the middle of a more lengthy discussion on the topic at hand.  You have to take in and process a lot of information before the pieces start to come together.  Still, we have to start somewhere.  I write now in an attempt to help accelerate this process by share my efforts with others.  Hopefully, this will help to jump start the process for those who desire to further their own education so that they may start to assemble the pieces necessary to see this bigger picture for themselves.

In my first post on this subject, Understanding the Progressive/Communist vs. Fascist Split in American Politics: Part I, I argued that we should think of the Progressives and Conservatives as similar to the Communist and Fascist in Europe, specifically in the first half of the 20^th Century.  Now, I understand that many Progressives will object to this, but they have no grounds to do so.  Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the Progressive movement, openly stated that he wanted to bring Communism into American politics.  He just wanted to ‘Americanize’ it first, so the people would accept it.  And today, the Communist Party US has stated that it no longer feels the need to run its own candidates as the Progressive agenda of the Democrat Party has already embraced all of the Communist Party’s political goals/policies.  In fact, the primary point of contention toward my argument has come from those who consider themselves to be Conservative.  These people do not see the connection between the Conservative movement and the Progressive movement.  But you must understand, I am not addressing those who consider themselves to be “Conservative” in the sense that they support the Constitution.  I am addressing the leadership.  It’s just that, until now, I didn’t know how to explain it to people so they might understand.  Then I saw this story and things started clicking into place:

Newt Gingrich sees major Mideast mistakes, rethinks his neocon views on intervention

Welcomes libertarian debate on U.S. military involvement

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.

“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

When I read this, it finally motivated me to look up the definition of “neoconservative.”  I had heard this term many times, mostly from the Left in accusation against someone on the Right.  But I never really knew what it meant, nor did I bother to find out.  I had been conditioned by “Conservative” media to just assume it was a baseless attack and, therefore, not worth my time to investigate.  When I did look it up, I realized how wrong I was, and why “Conservative” media works so hard to keep its listeners from doing what I did this past week.  Here is a little of what I found, starting with a dictionary definition and moving to better, more politically oriented explanations of the term:

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1:a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Conservapedia Definition of Neocon:

A neoconservative (also spelled “neo-conservative”; colloquially, neocon) in American politics can appear to be conservative while in fact favoring big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then dominated the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. Neoconservatives are often preferred by liberals to portray the conservative voice in the media, as in television talk shows, newspaper columnists, magazines, think tanks, and advisory positions in Republican Administrations.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues, [and] are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with paleoconservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Do people really understand what a NeoCon IS?

I hear people accusing other politicians of being a NeoCon on the Daily Paul and mostly they are right, but sometimes way off.

Of course you can go to wiki and get those sometimes limited definitions.

Let me give you a more direct definition.

First – NeoCon is the direct opposite of PaleoCon. ( look it up) [an example of a paleoconservative would be Pat Buchanan]

To help you Dr. Paul is half PaleoCon and half Libertarian.

The objective of NeoCons is to spread the wealth around the world, same as Obama with one big difference. Obama wants global government via a hybrid socialism/communism, the NeoCons want global Government via Corporatism/Elitism.

Now, before I go on, I want to take a moment to state that I do not necessarily agree with everything in these definitions — especially that from the Daily Paul blog.  However, from what I have learned so far, they all seem to have the same basic elements, and it is those elements to which I am trying to draw your attention.  This said, I would point to the last part of the Daily Paul definition.    It was these last few lines that really cleared things up for me.  If you will remember the distinction I made between Communism and Fascism in part one of this post:

Communism is a collectivist ideology where the State owns everything.  Fascism is a collectivist ideology where the State controls everything, but does so in partnership with favored industries which the State allows to remain in private hands – so long as those private hands do what the State tells them to do.  Communists tend to be for a borderless world while Fascists tend to be nationalistic and, thus, protectionist.  Both have militant leanings. 

The last lines from the final quote and the definition I wrote for Communism and Fascism are in almost total agreement, yet they were written independent of each other and about two different though related topics.  This is one of the basic elements to which I am speaking: the business/government partnership found in the “Conservative” movement.  It explains why the Progressive Left is always accusing the Right of being Fascist.  And, since Fascists are related to Progressive/Communists, it also explains why we so often find the Progressives accusing the Conservatives of doing what the honest observer knows the Progressives do as well, and usually more often and to a greater extent.  It is because the neocons are “Right-wing” Progressives, just like Teddy Roosevelt was when he started the Progressive movement while still in the Republican Party.

Now, if you’ll remember, Teddy R was a military man who didn’t shy away from asserting American influence.  But control of the Progressive movement was wrested away from him by Woodrow Wilson (among others).  Wilson also believed that American democracy should be spread abroad, but he favored the League of Nations, though he was still more than happy to go to war to achieve his goals.  When you research the policies of both sides of the Progressive movement in the early 20^th Century, you will find that they had very little to differentiate themselves.  Both believed in asserting American influence.  Both believed in the use of military force.  Both believed in government control of industry.  When it comes right down to it, the primary difference was that Teddy R’s version of Progressivism was nationalistic and allowed for more private ownership of property (so long as business did what government told it to) and Wilson’s version was globalist and favored the Communist model of central planning and control.  Today, if you will be honest with yourself and look past the surface charades, you will find that this is pretty much the same split we have today.  It will also go a long way to explain things that, until you understand this Progressive/Conservative split, are probably best explained by labeling someone a RINO, or calling them “incompetent.”

Sadly, they are anything but incompetent.  They also shouldn’t be referred to as RINO’s.  In truth, they are the epitome of the Republican Party.  As the leadership, they define the Party because they control its platform and its agenda.   The mistake there is in assuming the Republican Party belongs to its conservative base.  It doesn’t; it never really has.  What people must understand is that the Parties are private entities.  They no more belong to or are control by their rank-and-file voters than major corporations belong to and are controlled by common stock holders.  And, in this case, the Republican Party has been in the control of Right-Wing Progressives (i.e. Fascists) since the early part of last Century.  But, hopefully, this post will help you understand this, and explain why the Republican Party leadership always seems to be so out of step with its membership.

Now, before I wrap up this post, I want to make something perfectly clear: I understand that the rank-and-file member of the Republican Party considers themselves to be “Conservative.”  I also understand that they have a different definition of “Conservative” from the one I am advocating.  The problem is that they no more understand the definition of the word they use to describe their political ideology than the average Democrat voter understands the meaning of “Liberal/Progressive.”  I would suggest that those “Conservatives” who identify with Ronald Reagan are closer to “Classic Liberals” than they are to the “Conservatism” as defined by the leadership of the Republican Party.  And for this reason, I will be writing my next two posts on the history and meaning of the terms “Liberal/Liberalism” and “Conservative/Conservatism.”  I hope you will wait until I have them posted and you have had a chance to read and consider them before attacking me for associating the Leadership of the Republican Party with the Fascist Right of the Progressive movement.  It’s our leadership and not the membership that i am addressing.

[NOTE:  I would like to point out that I am not singling out or picking on Republicans/Conservatives.  Most everything I have said about the rank-and-file “Republican/Conservative” voter applies equally to the rank-and-file “Democrat/Liberal/Progressive” voter, and for much the same reasons.  But this is a difficult subject to explain and it requires more time to fully understand than most people are willing to invest.  This is why it has worked so well, and why it has been so easy to pit Americans against each other (Democrats and Republicans) who actually have more in common with each other than they do with their Party’s political agenda.  If you will bear with me through my first four to five posts, I believe I can make my case.  Then, after you have heard and considered it in its entirety, you are free to accept or reject it as you please.  All I ask is that you grant me the time I need to make my case before you draw your conclusions.]