Progressive? Socialist? Just different denominations in the Church of the Left
So “progressive” media watchdog group Media Matters decided to take a shot at CNN’s Lou Dobbs for his interpretation of Barack Obama and congressional Democrats‘ policies:
CNN’s Lou Dobbs has touted himself as politically “independent,” and CNN president Jonathan Klein has reportedly referred to Dobbs’ CNN show as “a relatively straight newscast.” But echoing others in the conservative media, Dobbs has repeatedly used his radio and CNN programs to attack President Obama and other progressives, claiming or suggesting that they or their policies are “socialist,” “fascist” or “un-American.”
The main thing that Media Matters is ticked about is that Dobbs is calling President Obama “socialist.” They argue that in doing so he’s revealing himself as a Movement Conservative instead of the independent populist most political observers have long clearly identified him as. They would rather he — and all others — refer to Obama, the Democrats and all others on their side as “progressives” and not “socialists.”
Well… what’s the difference exactly? It just so happens that I asked one of my “progressive” friends this question a few weeks ago when he objected to my description of Mother Jones as a socialist publication in one of my NewsReal posts about “progressive” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.
Pat, my Ralph Nader-voting friend, commented when my blog imported onto my Facebook page:
And what’s with calling Mother Jones a socialist magazine? I’d say it’s “smart fearless journalism” with a progressive tilt as their slogan suggests. There’s quite a difference between progressivism and socialism.
This is like calling the Weekly Standard or Wall Street Journal editorial page fascist.…
I know from reading a book on the legendary union organizer that Mother Mary Jones, herself, was a loosely-affiliated socialist, but there’s little indication the magazine is.
This seemed like a good opportunity for dialogue so I pressed Pat further:
How would you describe the difference between “progressivism” and “socialism”?
Is “Single-Payer” health care — of which you’re a vocal advocate — “progressive,” “socialist,” neither, or both?
Because to me the difference between “progressive” and “socialist” is like the difference between “Presbyterian” and “Methodist.” Sure there are differences but how significant are they?
Pat responded:
Single-Payer might be looked at as socialized medicine, but some things are done better when provided as a public service (military, Medicare, libraries, etc.) – some things are better socialized.
Those who advocate socialism want the government to run everything. Progressives don’t — we just want there to be adequate checks & balances in place on big business, we advocate for strong unions, regulated commerce, etc. and want everyone to be able to have an opportunity to reach for the American Dream.
I remember back in my leftist days, one of the things that always annoyed me when I read David Horowitz’s books was the way that he referred to “the Left.” I countered him by pointing out that within “the Left” there was a wide variety of viewpoints and to just say “the Left” was a gross oversimplification. And then I read a bit more and thought a bit more and gradually came to understand just why it’s acceptable to refer to “the Left” as one entity. (Simply: it’s not the differences between leftists but the ideas they have in common.)
The more I ponder on it, the more I think the metaphor I came up with in my dialogue with Pat holds. Building off of the characterization of the Left as a religious movement, when one says “the Left” think of it as though one were saying “Christianity.” Within Christianity there are a whole host of schools of thought. You’ve got your Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, etc. And these people have pretty clear disagreements. But we can still say “Christian” because of what they have in common.
So think of “progressive” and “socialist”as two different denominations within the religion of the Left. And when talking with a leftist or debating his political plans perhaps it’s best to consider carefully which denomination they fall into when you critique them. Otherwise you’ll sound like someone attacking a Baptist by calling them a Catholic.
And I don’t think that Lou Dobbs is really doing that very well when he attacks Obama and many of the Democrats as “socialists.” It’s just not their denomination within the Left. (Try telling Pat that Obama’s a “socialist” and he’ll cackle and howl. In Pat’s words Obama is a “corporatist sell-out.”)
As amusing as the “Obama Joker” image and “Why So Socialist” meme have been, I really question their utility. How effective is it to call Obama a socialist? Is that really going to persuade the vital center and win the fight on health care freedom?
So how about another strategy? Right now conservatives seem so focused on whether Obamacare is proper, ethical, or morally right. And conservatives seem to do this a lot — they go after a program or an idea because it’s morally wrong. Frankly, I think this argument can be bypassed altogether most of the time. Forget the philosophical debate of whether the US government should do something and instead focus on whether it can do something. Approach the issue in a pragmatic fashion. Specifically: we don’t have the money to implement a public health care option.
Further: even if we did, a “public option” probably wouldn’t reduce the number of uninsured that drastically. (The Left’s prescriptions are rarely effective treatments.) I’ve known too many people who actually have jobs that offer health insurance but choose not to take it because they don’t want to pay for it. I have little faith that very many uninsured people would shell out the $150 or so a month to pay for the government plan. Maybe that’s an argument that might resonate more than Dobbs thundering about socialism.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Top Posts « WordPress.com
- Progressive? Socialist? Just different denominations in the Church of the Left | Democrat = Socialist
- NewsReal Sunday: Finding fertile leftist soil for conservative seeds « NewsReal Blog
- American Thinker asks when a liberal descends into Stalinism « NewsReal Blog
- The Humorless Left Can’t Take Jokes or Creativity in Conservatives’ Criticism « NewsReal Blog
- The Humorless Left Can’t Take Jokes or Creativity in Conservatives’ Criticism | FrontPage Magazine
- Andrew Sullivan Weighs in on Frum, Horowitz, Beck « NewsReal Blog
- Hate Mail of the Day: Understanding the Crypto-Religious Mentality of the Left « NewsReal Blog
Lou Dobbs “tells it like it is”, and I hope he continues to do so. Perhaps Obama will send his union thugs to “convince” him to change. Otherwise Lou is not likely to change. The brown shirters have come to the U.S. What a pity.
I’m sorry- Medicare is well run? I think Pat should take a look at it’s debt and its reimbursement to hospitals and providers- oh, and how wealthy seniors don’t have to contribute more but all of us working young people do (and will likely never receive this benefit).
The government doens’t pay its bills on time, nor does it pay enough for providers to make a living- passing the cost onto insured patients.
Lou Dobbs is telling us the truth and telling it like it is………I’ve recently started to turn the TV to CNN to just hear him. Now, isn’t that a new turn – from Fox to CNN for truth in news.
Characterization of the Left as an assembly of true believing denominations of the one religion just about gets it, I believe. The Left is impervious to attack ( and civil discourse) because it’s based on belief, not reason. …”when talking with a leftist or debating his political plans perhaps it’s best to consider carefully which denomination they fall into when you critique them. Otherwise you’ll sound like someone attacking a Baptist by calling them a Catholic.” Actually, it doesn’t matter which denomination, progressive or socialist,you may be addressing since they both possess the unifying characteristic of irrationality. Their zeal and general resistance to truth make debate or common discourse wastes of our time. In fact, it’s been suggested that the Left with their branch of liberalism constitute a mental disorder, an aberration. Well?
Nice analysis. I always come back to the fundamental point that if you want to maintain your credibility you must say “correct” things. Statements that are literally true are impervious to effective counter attack.
Therefore, I’ve no time for blathering that Obama is a socialist. He is not; certainly not as defined in European terms (where they actually have socialism)…or even by american standards.
Hit Obama where it counts; on his insanse plan to triple the national debt, his incompetence in ramming through complex and far reaching bills (Stimulus, Cap & Trade, and now Health Care), and the radical Left congress’ overreach. These are issues that swing voters will actually respond to. They will not respond to charges that are easily proven not to be true.
The terms “left” and “right” in political dialogue refer to a degree of state control of individuals. For example, the farthest “left” a nation could be would be totalitarian, whereas the farthest “right” a society could be would be “anarchy”.
For an Amercian political movement to call itself “progressive” is interesting because there is no notion whatever of social “progress” in our constitution. Social “progress” is a Marxist concept wherein the end of history is known: world communism. “History” is what happens as the world “progresses” to that end in the Marxist view.
The US constitution is nothing more than a set of guarantees for individual rights and what is limited in that document is the power of government, not the prerogatives of individuals. As such, far from there being any concept whatever of social “progress”, the constitution protects individuals from formation or construction of a government which would seek to impose it’s ideas of “social progress” on individuals. Thus, for a political movement to call itself “progressive” is to me anathema to our founding precepts and any law calculated to achieve such “progress” would be in essence unconstitutional and very, very “left”.
“Single-Payer might be looked at as socialized medicine, but some things are done better when provided as a public service (military, Medicare, libraries, etc.) – some things are better socialized.”
That quote struck me as incredibly interesting from a couple of perspectives. First of all I thought his mention of the military in that comment highly dubious. Of course I agree because I believe having organized well trained military forces is one of the few things the government is actually able to do well. However, having been around a lot of “progressives” and Nader supporters when I was living in Bloomington, IN I never found a single one of them that didn’t think military spending should be the lowest of our national priorities. I have a feeling that was nothing more than mere lip service and disingenuous at best. Secondly, to imply that Medicare is a well run system is laughable. In my opinion the current state of Medicaid, Medicare and the VA system are some of the biggest arguments against Obamacare. Finally I was also thinking about the libraries comment. I can say I agree with that as well mostly because I think it’s of societal importance that we have access to all the sorts of knowledge that libraries have available. Also, a library run by private industry, while it might be cool, would probably not be financially sustainable. That brings us to the core difference. The military and libraries are important things to ensure a free society, but would not be able to be provided by private services. However, health care is one of those things that is provided and provided at a high level by private industry. When people present arguments like this be careful and always ask yourself this question, “Which one of these things is not like the others?”
Accepting your premise, then couldn’t there be just as much problem with referring to “moderates”? One side believes they are this and the other says that they are that. Sure there are different denominations(say) of any of those. But most of them are calibrated by left or right characteristics in the end. Lets leave aside major differences in the Christianity examples.
As to the moral factor in politics, the issues they deal with bring them in. (you have liberal ethicists pushing it) And increasingly they are bringing moral positions into politics, namely within the left on various issues. But we are told moral philosophical debate or moral emphasis is unwelcome? –”Moral debate is over”. While at it couldn’t we just say that progressives are the new pro-socialists? Even stalwart socialists like to refer to themselves as progressives. In the process of shedding the baggage of the word socialist, they also are constantly defining the term progressive — to the left. Of course the problem, we’re told, is seeing them as more less two peas in a pod. I can’t agree.
But if you notice the left does not confine itself by any such boundaries as you suggest. And they want to decide the definitions and labels for all. Thereby sometimes the philosophic and moral debate becomes necessary to show the difference. I will continue to group them as leftists when the consensus they present is left — as socialist when necessary. PRogressive is their new term, but includes the socialistic principles. And nothing stopped them from lumping conservatives with fascists referring to the right when they wanted. But a Bernie Sanders is a socialist at heart as much as he likes to be called progressive. Who is in denial?
But hey, I’m still offended by this left (much of it the new left) for ruining the word liberal too. However, I grant there is a danger in overuse and desensitizing the word. (such as done to nazi) One has to characterize the ideas, and philosophy, in real terms.
I forgot to mention that socialist is a descriptive term. Lou Dobbs as an economist is aware of its meaning and what he is saying. I believe he has reasons for it. The word progressive, just as “left” is, is a moving target in a perpetual state of evolution — building on itself, just as government does.
The simple claim that “we don’t have the money to implement a public health care option.” really is not the point when we get right down to what Americans want. If we think it is valuable or useful, we will find the money.
Proof? Look at the past decade when one of the few federal government surpluses was squandered and wasted on a useless and illegal war.
There is no administration on earth that could correct the deficit achieved in those two presidential terms. So let’s continue to offer solutions rather than dead end claims about birth certificates. We are in this together whether we like each other or not.
Just as you said all denominations within the realm of Christianity share enough common ideals that they can be linked together, all – or maybe almost all – Americans can be linked in that we want our system to survive enough to contribute realistic ideas and solutions to make it so.
Keep up the posts of good comments. I am enjoying reading them.
Lou Dobbs will need to learn that while the Marxist President is occuping the White House, there is only one opinion allowed……….His and the other cut-and run,anti-American Marxists in the Congress of the United States…as well as his 40 Czars.
Progressives, Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Marxists, or any other such name all have the same global control as their agenda. The only difference is their methodology. I hope many, or most, Americans realize WE HAVE BEEN SET UP because of the tremendous effort and money it has taken over many years to reach the point where we are today.
I agree with your assessment of the left, but the same applies to the right. You can have social conservatives who believe policy should be made from their interpretation of Christianity and then you have Constitutionalists.
Constitutionalists understand what John Adams meant when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our interpretation of morality through our American laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. To deny a moral obligation of government to do or not do something is ignoring that our country was founded with heavy undertones of Christianity.
The application of moral principles to government is not an exclusively Conservative or Right Wing phenomena. Leftist have a heavy moral outlook on government. Even more so than Conservatives, I would argue. The left’s guiding principles on social policy are based on altruism. Almost every policy of the left (in every form) is an expression of their brand of morality. Ayn Rand explains this point very well.
I have been tangling with which is which in political thought on the left, and how it should be classified, it is very difficult because of the denials, misdirection, and outright lies about what they actually stand for. If one really doubts this, one only has to look at the plethora of N.G.O s operating under the financial umbrella of George Sorros, different front groups with the same goal. In some cases the differences amount to very little of substance other then subscribing to a given cult of personality’s interpretation, for example Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyites , etc, but all are Marxists.
Here is the bottom line, they believe that state control or intervention is the solution to all of life’s problems, believe in bigger and more intrusive government, and they all believe in the redistribution of wealth, the only difference is what degree of authoritarianism should be employed. So I have come to the conclusion that the most inclusive term to define all of these groups and sects, currently in use by Mark Levin, (and in the past by Ayn Rand), is to refer to them all as “Statist”. You can be a Facist, National Socialist, Stalinist, Maoist, Corporatist, or even an Islamist, all are statists, they put the collective, the state, the leader, the race, the religion ahead of that of the individual through the heavy hand of state power.
For fifty years I had the privelege of providing anesthesia care for patients requiring qpen heart surgery, including the first forty transplants at Stanford. The most disturbing mental excercise I have faced is the use of the concept of science as the solution of humanities ills. All divisions of academia have now become a descriptive modified science. This has become the root error of ratonal thought, providing that thought with a ‘politically correct’ proof of validity that is an irrational concept to begin with. The underlying problem of this application of the science modified by human study is the absence of knowledge of the possibly significant factors that are assumed to be unimportant to the study by including a control group that has nothing to do with the study group other than they exist. This would seem, rationally, to discredit that vast amount of government sponsored research that supports the ‘institutions of higher learning, This collection of pseudo-science is supported by statistical study that combines data of varying accuracy that is summarized with the level of least accuracy dominent to the level of greatest accuracy and reliability. From there the conclusions, without support, are made and expanded, illogically, into a generalization that applies to the group that best supports the prejudice of the author and ‘expert’. The current political philosophy that best exemplifies the great damage that this form of academia can cause is the whole global warming pseudo-science that has now become the most powerful economic tool leading to the total loss of individual freedom and chance for economic success.
Once Lou got off the BIRTH CERTIFICATE crusade, he jumped right into the serious questions regarding health in this country. Most of the problems with health care pretain to the strangle hold insurance and pharmaceutical companies maintain over the legislators. and becuase most are lawyers, tort reform is out of the question. Therefore, the real issues never get addressed or corrected.
Name calling is a smoke screen tactic to draw attention away from the scam in progress.
Tort reform would do much toward lowering costs. Not only do the lawyers reap big fees, but they force providers to order many procedures to protect themeselves, plus pay humongous insurance premiums. Texas has enacted tort caps which has attracted Dr.s there and reduced costs.
The rise in referrals that the government complains about would stop with tort reforms. As someone said prior, “this will never happen”. Where does that leave us?
I am one of the many seniors who is satisfied with the insurance I have. My insurance provider and Medicade could survive with tort reform.
“As amusing as the “Obama Joker†image and “Why So Socialist†meme have been”
Uh..no. It was lame. And it didn’t make sense.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Snus
From The Conservative History of the American Left by Daniel Lynn
“Just as Social Security absolved individuals of the responsibility to save for retirement, Medicare absolved them of the responsibility to save for medical care when they needed it most. And just as Social Security had dragged along Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1935, the middle class entitlement Medicare dragged along the less popular welfare program Medicaid.
“The government picked up most of the tab for senior citizens’ medical bills (and the medical bills of poor people in the case of Medicaid), and not surprising to anyone who understands the basic rules of economics, those bills kept growing. The state had hoped to make medical care cheaper by granting senior citizens a subsidy. Instead, it had inflated the price and, in effect, given the subsidy to doctors. ‘Hospital prices, which had risen 7 percent in the year before Medicare, jumped by 14 percent in the year after and continued to rise, on the average, 14 percent annually over the next decade’, Allen J. Matusow notes in the Unraveling of America.
“…after Medicare and Medicaid the aged and the poor made more visits to the doctor and received treatment that they might have previously neglected.
“…What’s settled is that medical care became exponentially more expensive, not cheaper, in the aftermath of Medicare and Medicaid. As with so much of the Great Society, results did not match intentions.” (p.280)
“’I have never believed that those who are governed least are governed best,’ reflected Lyndon Johnson after his tenure in office.” (p. 279)
Comment: The ‘Great Society’ had only wetted people’s appetites. The Left and those on the dole could never get enough. They wanted more and more. One of the greatest flaws liberals have is the complete inability to understand human nature and a total disregard for history. With their feet planted firmly in the sky they can only see their utopia in the distance and nothing will suffice until they achieve that. They will never learn that their fantasy will always remain just that, but in dragging humanity towards that delusion, they produce dystopia in the real world. Today, December 2009, they want to usher in another program, perhaps the most devastating ever in our history, socialized medicine. Not satisfied with the damage created by the New Deal, mitigated only by WWII, or the damage unleashed by the ‘Great Society’ programs, assuaged only by the Vietnam War, these Leftist tyrants want to inflict even more devastation with Socialized Medicine. The Founding Fathers would have rebelled against all of this tyranny and suppression of liberty. We may yet have to do the same.
Let’s make sure that we’re remembering the difference between fact and opinion. And let’s not mistake our opinions of truth for the Truth itself.
While I think there’s some merit to many of the points in your comment ultimately I strongly disagree. Debate and common discourse has tremendous value. If David Horowitz hadn’t done so with me then I’d probably be blogging for Media Matters instead of the Freedom Center. So be sure not to forget that there are plenty of thoughtful, often open-minded leftists out there.
That being said you’re right that many leftists are not worthy of debate. For an example of one check out this essay I wrote upon encountering an Afro-Centric radical who called me a racist:
http://davidswindle.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-cant-save-everyone.html
Thalpy,
As conservatives we know the limitations of our abilities to change and remake the world. There is so very little that we can do and contribute toward making an impact at changing things. (This is what separates us from the Left who seem to think that the world can be drastically improved if only the proper policies were made into law and the the proper politicians elected.)
So I suppose my advice to you would be to work at the individual level. Try and befriend just one person with political ideas counter to your own. Make one friend on the other side who you can connect with who you can help teach how to love America. That’s do-able isn’t it?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, JohnR. I hope to continue to see more in the future. Please come back and visit us again.
David. I have to admit to very pleasantly surprised by the maturity and thoughtfulness of these last to comments. While I still disagree with many of your conclusions on issues, here are some comments that compel me to reassess my earlier conclusion that you were merely another typical RWA, a sub-group of right-wing whose “thinking” amounts to not much more than memorizing what their leaders have said on a given subject.
Having said that, what then is your opinion of the research I have been quoting? I will preempt the suggestion that it comes from fringe researchers whose opinions are in the minority by admitting that the authors of the one found on Okla. gov. prison website are relatively unknown. But Altemeyer is a giant in the field who draws on the previous research of people like Adorno, a man who is only slightly less well known than Milgram, who is of course the one who devised the startling — and quite depressing — experiment told of Obedience To Authority .
Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. Today’s post is probably a bit too cathartic. By trivializing the importance of debate and common discourse-without exception, I’ve omitted conditions that you have found to be of value in your life and work. Your example provides a hopeful example for us all. David Horowitz is beyond doubt one of the most gifted communicator-educators of our time. He may well have seen you as one of those thoughtful, and ultimately educable, open minded leftists out there. His time was well spent with you and perhaps with others, but when it comes to Obama’s legions, the czars, Congress, and the MSM-what then? Have any of the town hall meetings been initiated to provide a give and take on the issues? These are the leftists I had in mind when I made my comments.
Thank you.
I don’t see very much validity in the “research” you’ve been quoting Gary. From the limited snippets I’ve seen it seems as though some leftist social scientist tried to dress up their prejudices in scientific jargon.
It strikes me as the sort of bait-and-switch I once adhered to when I was a leftist. Define “conservatism” as the most outlandish authoritarian absurdity imaginable instead of as a sensible, thoughtful political tradition.
It seems to me as though you’re just quoting from this “research” so you don’t have to grapple with conservative ideas. Throw up some scientific research and all of a sudden you instantly win every debate. That really seems the easy way out.
If the “research” is valid — and it might be, I haven’t studied it — then it’s probably a more accurate study of authoritarianism, not conservatism. These aren’t the same thing, as I’m sure you know. And those of us writing for the Freedom Center’s publications tend to come from within American conservatism’s more libertarian traditions.
More about me here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35212
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-horowitzs-conservatism-postmodern.html
Ditto. (no Rush Limbaugh inference intended
).
You’ve voiced several controversial opinions that I disagree with, but the “Obama=socialist” meme is patently absurd. That would seem to rest on the idea that his desire to institute of another socialized program (like NASA, USARMY, public schooling, etc.) among many others that clearly are not, somehow indicates he’s a closet Marxist who wants to get all the rest socialized as soon as he can. Nonsense.
In my opinion, he like myself, thinks that government bureaucrats will be less likely to cut off someones care than the insurance industry bureaucrat whose job security depends on doing precisely that. One fears the electorate (to whom they are all ultimately responsible), the other only the Wall St. bureaucrat who demands that he turn ever -higher profit margins.
Obama isn’t a Marxist. It’s just not the right denomination of the Left to refer to him. I asked David Horowitz once — someone who knows Marxism backwards and forwards — if he thought Obama was a Marxist. He said that he wasn’t and I agree with him.
I tend to regard some (though not all) “social conservatives” not as conservatives at all but as a kind of “Christian radicals.”
Great comment.
Your website is very neat, btw. Please come back and see us soon.
But in fact, anarchists have always been seen as extreme Left, and that has been borne out by who they ally with during times of war and revolution. And the reason for that is your idea that the left-right spectrum is measuring totalitarianism is completely wrong. In fact, it is attitudes toward equality, both by the state and the citizens within that state. Because anarchists resist the idea of government they inherently resist the idea of others having power over them. That leaves them with a more egalitarian outlook almost by default, which then places them on the political left. And historically,take the Spanish Civil War eg. , the anarchists fought alongside the communists and republicans (democrats), against the very hierarchically structured fascists and monarchists, both of whom had the blessings of the Spanish Catholic Church…also a very hierarchical, hence right-wing, institution.
I’m not sure exactly why so many in the US make this fundamental attribution error, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the Cold War rhetoric told them over the last half-century; rhetoric which focused primarily on Stalin’s brutality and paranoid, totalitarian ways while ignoring the original, Marxist inspired principals that saw them overthrowing the Tsarist monarchy that basically ruled over a modern serfdom long after it had been abolished in the West. That is the reason why the inequity of the Czars was immediately replaced with the egalitarian idea to give everyone free health-care and educations, with heavily subsidized apartments and basic foodstuffs…..all things that contain the concept of sharing the load equally, no matter the amount of work each citizens puts into the system.
However!….In industry particularly… this feature ignores the very human drive to get ahead by replacing it with a demand that they need only meet a pre-set quota — regardless of the quality of the product.
Now I’m sure your very familiar with the results of ignoring that particular aspect of human nature. Communism has proven itself as being unable to compete with capitalism when it comes to the production of goods. But many people feel there are other things that are more important than their own enrichment, which is why socialism is still very much alive in Europe and elsewhere despite the very poor example set by Stalin of what people want from their leaders.
So… the Left is inspired by equality of opportunity (anti-monarchists eg.) and against the hoarding of wealth beyond what can reasonably be said to be “enough” for any one person…..and NOT the desire to rule over others, as so many who restrict themselves to these echo-chambers have come to believe.
“Fascism… is the exact opposite of socialism” – Mussolini (responding to the question “What is fascism?”asked by the editors of an Italian encyclopedia wanting his definition for this new entry. Mussolini is of course the man to whom “credit” is given for developing fascism as an ideology. (don’t take my word for it…look it up)
Thanks for dropping by and providing some good thoughts, Brent. I hope you’re doing well and hope to see you soon, my friend.
Very well put, sir. Why don’t our legislators deal with this problem? It stems from campaign contributions, I fear, another serious flaw in the election process.