Where is the US economy headed?

Difficult to do when folks dream up crimes that's never been committed.

True

There is an anology to be made with the contemporary hatred of some for Obama and Fr. Coughlin's (and some of his listeners) for then President Roosevelt. Both, I believe are related to similar perceptions.

The America First movement of the late 1930s was focused as much on the evils of the Soviet Union as it was on those of Nazi Germany. They advocated letting two hateful empires (Nazi Germany and the USSR) fight each other to the death - without our intervention. It is useful to remember that Stalin's mass murders and deportations in the Crimea, the Ukrane and the then recently seized Baltic nations were then known contemporary events (particularly to 1st & 2nd generation Polish, Lithuanian and Ukranian immigrants in the Midwest), while those of the Nazis had not yet occurred.

There was then a strain of apologists for the Soviet Union in this country, primarily to be found among the Progressive supporters of the New Deal. This became a prominent issue in the U.S. in 1933, following the famine and forced deportations in Ukraine that killed anywhere from 4 to 10 million (depending on the source). Progressive sympathisers in the U.S. government and among the liberal press denied the catastrophe and some even falsely characterized the forced collectivization of farms that attended the genocide as a great success. Prominent among them was the New York Times' correspondent, Walter Duranty who got a Pulitzer prize in 1933 for his on scene reporting, denying the starvation and describing the forced collectivization as a great success. We now know the gruesome reality was far different.

This was the contemporary scene for the development of the anti USSR America First movement, that Fr. Coughlin of Detroit and others supported. My parents knew him, and my father, then a (Democrat) Congressman from Detroit also supported the America First movement (though I recall them saying that Coughlin, a priest from a suburban parish in Detroit, was a bit crazy - as he rapidly shifted from avid support of Roosevelt to equally avid opposition. Interestingly he was a Canadian.).

All of this should remind us that there were folks here who well understood the danger to the world posed by Soviet Communism well before WWII, and there were also, among our then contemporary elites, those who saw it as a progressive force in the world. On both sides there were folks who added their own bits of nonsense to the debates. Whether anything better could have evolved if we pursued wiser policies is beyond knowing - history doesn't reveal its alternatives.

The enduring truth is that some progressive redistributionist movements can be the cause or rationalization for great and enduring tyrannies. Others end up far more benign. Knowing the difference requires thought, insight and a flexible mind. Zealots on both sides of political arguments usually lack those qualities.

George, interesting. As I honestly answered pom, I had never heard of the Coughlin guy and had no idea who he was. So besides reading your interesting post, I did some web searching, and of course one source is Wikipedia, which indicates the man was an avid FDR and New Deal supporter early on, so basically he sounds like his basic politics leaned leftward. Later, he apparently became very vocal about his anti-semitic views and was an apologist for Hitler and Mussolini, so it appears his politics were sympathetic to Fascism, which is also very leftist in nature. The pattern here is totally consistent with a left leaning philosophy. Apparently one of his favorite slogans was "social justice," which interestingly is a favorite of almost every leftist dictator. I have pointed that out numerous times here.

One thing I know for sure, I do not recall ever hearing my parents talk about Father Coughlin, and I am certain they would never have liked him. Number one, they did not even own a radio until the 50's, nor did they even listen to it much when they did, and they were not Catholics so why would they care to listen to some priest spouting his political views? Besides, my parents were not anti-semitic. In fact, I remember pretty clearly my mother shopping at a grocery store owned by Jews, in fact she talked about how business savvy they were, and I had the distinct impression she knew them personally and liked them. They had great bargains and she regularly shopped there for produce every week. I know because as a little kid I sat in the back seat of the car on her shopping trips, while she talked about her shopping, the bargains, and her philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

And George, I must address something you said in the above:

I agree with you wholeheartedly about "progressive redistributionist movements" causing tyrannies. However when you say zealots on both sides of political arguments lack the ability to distinguish between the benign leftists and the dangerous ones. I think you are dead wrong, as you once again want to paint yourself as some center of the road analyst of the policital spectrum. I will remind you of a couple of things. Were the founders and signers of the Declaration of Independence over zealous? And was John F. Kennedy wrong when he said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" ? Was he wrong, George?

I would also like to ask you, how many cancers are benign, no matter how small they are? Ponder that over for a while.

You are well aware that you have told me I am wrong in regard to Hitler being a leftist, I believe you are the one, and you have criticized me for being too zealous or extreme in my conservatism. What you are interpreting as extremism is a solid and justifiable belief in what is conservative, correct and right, and a vigorous opposition to what is leftward, liberal, and wrong. I never thought JFK was that great of a president, but I certainly agree with what he said, perhaps a speechwriter wrote it for him, when he said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

To add to my statement, the mantra of "social justice" is in fact very common with almost all leftist tyrannies and dictators. Both Hitler and Stalin were into "social justice." Both were leftists, but reside at somewhat different points on the scale heading left, with Hitler perhaps to the right of Stalin, but still way left of center. Hitler's brand of socialism was nationalistic, while Stalin's was more of an international brand.

Your quote, "Extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice" was from Barry Goldwater, not JFK. His words were deliberately provocative and they did him little good.

Coughlin was never a very important figure, but he is often misused to make a variety of points. Mostly he appeared to be seriously taken with the sound of his own voice and perhaps a bit off his rocker - at least that's what I recall hearing when I was a child. He was indeed an avid supporter of Roosevelt and the New Deal, though he turned from him over his (Roosevelt's) active attempts to get us involved in the coming war (WWII). The America First Movement was a serious thing and had many serious supporters, who are often mischaracterized as supporters of Coughlin.

Progressive, redistributionist movements can indeed be either benign or tyrannical, depending on the degree to which they are either democratic or authoritarian. We have been over this before. You attempt to force the characterization of all political movements onto a linear, centrist vs extreme scale that appears beyond understanding to me (and your tortured explanations tell me that you don't understand it either). The fact is that there are at least two orthogonal dimensions required to describe the political reality: they are Left & Right under the usual political characterizations and, orthogonal to that, authoritarian vs democratic/libertarian. Thus there are democratic socialist movements such as those seen in Scandanavia; and there are authoritarian ones such as the former Soviet Union or Cuba today. There are conservative free market democracies and there are (or have been) right wing tyrannies, such as Nazi Germany or, for a more benign case, Franco's Spain. You refuse to recognize the multidimensional character of the reality and get yourself into a lot of foolishness as a result.

I would like to add a comment here. I do not believe for a minute that JFK was promoting extreme actions in the way of unlawful actions for example. I believe he was merely promoting the idea that we must be extremely committed to defending liberty. For example, our efforts in World War II were extreme, in that it took extreme courage, extreme commitment, and extremely devoted efforts of all kinds on the part of our citizens to prevail. The extremism had to do with degree of courage, degree of commitment, and degree of devotion, but it did not have to do with the nature of what we did.

Similarly, those people that are very zealous conservatives are on very solid ground and very justified to be extremely and zealously committed to honorable and decent causes.

George, you persist in labeling Nazi Germany a right wing tyranny, when in fact Hitler talked the talk and walked the walk as a leftist. What evidence do you have that Hitler was a conservative right winger? I would submit that you have precious little.

Yes, he may have been to the right of Stalin and pure Marxist philosophy, I would not dispute that at all, but most of his beliefs were not at all conservative or right wing. I have challenged you before on this, but simply look at the platform of his movement, the Nazi 25 points, and take them one by one, and make an honest judgement of whether they are more conservative or more liberal or leftist in nature. I have already done that on the Dictator thread and recorded the obvious truths there.

Seriously George, if we knew nothing else about the 25 points besides the following, this would be enough to make it an open shut case beyond any reasonable doubt that the Nazis and Hitler were leftists.

"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

Nazi Point #25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations."

And there is plenty more proof of liberal leftism in the 25 points besides the above.

Thanks for the correction, George.

okie, You're probably about 99% wrong in your assessment of any economy or politics. Germany, during Hitler's time, was a National Socialist country. National Socialists are politically extreme right wingers.

You're poor at history, because you fail to see the facts, and arrive at conclusions that you alone seem to favor.

Hitler, who led the Nazi Party believed that their race was superior. There is nothing "liberal" in that thinking.


There are many resources in web land that describes Hitler's Germany. Most support the following:

I'm not interested in arguing the point. I have made several good faith efforts to help you untangle your very tortured and convoluted attempts to rationalize your misconceptions in this area, but without success. This is unfortunate in that this is the source of both your own misconceptions and most of the opposition to your posts. Ironically the whole silly argument is tangential to what appear to be your central concerns. In short, you are the principal victim of your refusal to rethink this matter.

What prominent man can we cite that regularly ranted against rich whites and rich Jews that have enslaved and taken advantage of the poor? And he also promoted something called Black Liberation Theology, which teaches racial superiority and racial inferiority. None other than Obama friend and prominent mentor, the very liberal leftist Reverend Wright. I could dig up many examples of leftists and liberals demagoguing races of people to support their agenda, but I think the one I give is illustrative enough to totally disprove your foolish assertion. In fact, I believe the evidence is strong that most of the anti-semitism like Hitler harbored, now resides on the left as well, just as it did in Germany.

okie, Try to stay on the subject; it's about Hitler being a conservative. It's not about Obama. Your tangents only proves you have no good response to the main topic; Hitler is a conservative.

Fine, run away from what stares you in the face, George. I don't see how you can look at the simplest of things in the Nazi 25 points, the central one being COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD, and not recognize the obvious truth of that simple principle that underlies the whole thing. Surely you would not wish to claim such a principle is right wing in nature? Would you be that ignorant of left vs right leaning principles? I don't think so, as you seem to be an intelligent man.

I am sorry to be like a dog hanging onto a bone here, but the fact that it should be so obvious to the most casual observer let alone an intelligent political observer, it bugs me to no end. And there is nothing tortured or convoluted about interpreting a simple and straightforward principle that is not at all ambiguous, George.

"25 points?" ROFLMAO

The 25 points outlines the National Socialist Party's Program.

Hitler was a leftist, ci. He is no longer alive, so he cannot be a conservative now. I would challenge you to name one belief or policy that he had that was conservative, ci. He never had a conservative bone in his body. He was a raging leftist that hated Jews, capitalism, and freedom. Hating capitalism and freedom is still a very common denominator of leftists, and it has always been.

Government debt skyrocketed during the Third Reich, quadrupling in six years, so Hitler could finance a war of aggression.

That's a conservative policy, right?

oe, That's way beyond okie's comprehension level.

Strange that conservatives like Winston Churchill had to oppose the man then? Why fight a fellow conservative? Its silly time for libs here again, folks, in their futile and hopeless attempts to find something that Hitler did or believed that was conservative.