The darkness of the Fascism Smear

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds asks : Why does the left uses fascism smear against rivals?

Comment:

Reynolds is way too easy on them. They use it because they think it works for them. It has worked for them in the past, but it may be losing its punch. Why? For the first time, those who use this tactic aren't relegated to the fringes of the party. The leaders of the party did not use this tactic, until the Dark Brandon speech. It only works for them if at least they have a credible appearance of moderation. This party is not "moderate" in the least. Neither in word nor in deed. It's not only Brandon, but Hillary as well who has used this tactic lately. It's no longer a lunatic fringe tactic.

There has been discussion recently of a liberal named Paul Krugman, who writes for the "New York Times". His book, The Conscience of a Liberal" has been mentioned here. That book was published in 2007. His thesis in the book is that the "polarization" has been due to the "hard right's" influence on the GOP. So, let's take a deeper dive into that book. The reason is that this tactic has a long history. It has been used long before 2007.

He claims (in his book) that Democrats haven't moved left : He fails to mention old Solid South, and the loss of a conservative element in the Democrat party, 2) since his book came out, Nancy Pelosi went from being against impeachment ( supposedly) to being for impeachment of Trump. The radical wing of the party was calling for the ouster of Trump all along, thus 3) The party has been taken over by the radicals. 4) Obama was America's first leftist president. Obama was mentored by a communist. Those are indisputable facts. Here's another one: Since 1968, the Democrat Party has been moving leftward. Yet, Krugman claims that they are the same as always.

Something must have changed because the polls say so. The direction of the country poll has not been above water for nearly all of the new century. That's quite a long time. The election of Obama did not change it for long. It may have been above water for a short time. When it went under, did not go back up for the rest of his two terms.

Krugman's argument is about who owns the middle. But the "middle" is just the old dialectic mentioned over and over again here. Marxists love to use this, as it comes from Hegel. Hitler didn't mind using it either. The point is to disarm the opposition and render them helpless. It is easy to win when you demand that the other side not defend itself, and the response is obliging. As it can be seen, Liz Cheney is certainly obliging.

What does "hard right" mean for Krugman, if it isn't a subliminal comparison to Hitler? Krugman didn't make that connection in his 2007 book, but it is understood. If it wasn't, did Brandon just now discover it? Did Hillary just now discover it? What better way to disarm your opponent than to call them an infamous name? If you dare to defend yourself, then you are just being "mean". Easy to win that way. Hard to understand the obliging response of some in the GOP, like Romney.

What do these "hard right" types talk about once they get amongst themselves? There was a CPAC convention, with the 2012 candidates ( in 2012) mentioned here It is pretty much plain vanilla stuff. According to the "hard left", old fashioned American patriotism is no longer respectable. In fact, it is fascist. Usually, the conservatives talk about limited government and freedom. This isn't fascism. Freedom and fascism doesn't go together.

Compare that with what Hitler said himself in his book "Mein Kampf".

Shirer: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

At the very least, the comparisons of the "hard right" are not apt. But they might be apt for what the Democrats have become. Is it really necessary to list the reasons why it has become an apt comparison for Democrats these days? Or are memories that short? Or has the opposition become too intimidated to say anything in response? This goes for everyone, not just Republicans, but those in the Democrat party who may have given in to the "spiritual terror" thrown their way.

So, why do they do it? It has worked for them in the past. If it works for them again, it will become a feature of politics for the foreseeable future. The only way to stop it is to defeat it resoundingly. Perhaps a Pavlovian response will persuade them not to do it again. Well, at least one would hope so.