Why won't Liberal Talkers (Radio & TV) call 'em 'Fascists'?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

Some do, but most don't.

Why not?

And what can we do to change it?

[TheWraith]

1. Maybe because they actually understand what that word really means.

And the fact that nothing in American history has come close, even McCarthyism barely bumping the needle.

[4th law of robotics]

3. +1

"Why won't these talking heads call them what they really are: unicorns!".

[OneAngryDemocrat]

10. I disagree...

I vehemently disagree.

In fact, I challenge anyone to define 'fascism' and tell me how it does to apply to the modern GOP.

Feel free to take up the challenge before calling me extreme.

[4th law of robotics]

11. Well for starters there are no competing parties in a fascist state

anyone who tries finds them selves "disappeared".

So that's a pretty big difference.

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. Ditto

Plus extremism turns people off. If we appear unhinged all the time who would want to pay attention to us?

[maxrandb]

23. Well, I will say that "extremism" seems to be working for the Repugs n/t

[OneAngryDemocrat]

8. I disagree...

I vehemently disagree.

In fact, I challenge anyone to define 'fascism' and tell me how it does to apply to the modern GOP.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. How do you define 'fascism' (and 'fascist')? Robert O. Paxton, in

The Anatomy of Fascism introduces no fewer (by my count) than 15 often-overlapping descriptions and definitions, going so far as to suggest at one point that the term itself has lost all meaning other than as an epithet to be hurled at those with whom one disagrees.

[Posteritatis]

32. Only a fascist could say such a thing.

*ducks and runs*

[jeff47]

2. Because name calling is less convincing than talking about what they've actually done

If name calling was as effective as you imply, Republicans would win 95% of the vote.

[RC]

5. Accurately labeling something is not name calling.

Label it what it is, 'fascism'. Corporations have mostly bought our government already and are heavily invested in buying our elections to finish the job.

[jeff47]

6. Again, if it worked that well, Mitt would be up 90-10.

The fact that he isn't kinda indicates how useful this plan would be.

[rustydog]

18. It worked so well, corporations are people my friend! "People" who

can give UNLIMITED amounts of cash to whatever party or individaual they wish to own and control.
They have had regulations reduced to a mere shadow of oversight or control. They are weakening union voices and they are now purging voter rolls...this is the beginning of a facist regime. THE GOP is 100% behind the effort.

[shcrane71]

22. Look at a map on election night. Do you see that virtually the ENTIRE

country is RED??? Now, go to one of those RED places and get a job. Tell people that you're Liberal. Try not to worry about your safety.

Name-calling works. Just ask the GOP.

Nevertheless, it's not name-calling to state that a politician who advocates for a government beholden and run by corporate interests is a fascist. That's just being truthful.

[jeff47]

25. Someday, maybe you'll understand the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Until then, feel free to wallow along, feeling sorry for all those poor downtrodden victims of namecalling.

Alternatively, pull your head out of your ass and look at polling. If namecalling worked, how come Mitt is losing? Namecalling is all he's done since he sewed up the nomination. Yet even with an economy in the shitter, he still isn't winning.

[shcrane71]

27. GOP is the party for fascists, it's a fact. Exit polls said Walker/Barrett were in a dead heat.

Your mother didn't teach you how to have a civil discussion did she?

[jeff47]

28. You're the one pushing for namecalling. You can't then ask for a civil discussion next

Any incumbent with an economy this bad should be down by an enormous amount. Yet Obama's up over Mitt. And you want us to switch to Mitt's "All namecalling, all the time" strategy that is causing him to massively under-perform?

Maybe you can now tell us how Obama shouldn't run on his record, and needs to only talk about his time in the private sector too. Or any of the other "brilliant" solutions coming from the peanut gallery.

[shcrane71]

29. I'm responding to the OP. You're responding to the voices in your head.

The GOP is the party for corporate-rule -- fascism. Liberal talk show hosts don't mention that. Seems the OP and this post wonders why that is, and how we can change that.

Meanwhile, continue to denigrate liberals. That's a great way to GOTV.

[jeff47]

34. Except fascism isn't corporate rule.

Fascism has other elements, and corporate rule isn't actually part of it. The corporations are definitely not in control. The ruling party is in control, and they also run the corporations.

Which is a big part of why calling them fascists is a bad idea. Now you get to spend time arguing over the definition of fascism instead of talking about how Mitt wants Grandma to not have medical care.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. Oh really? Your say so of the 90% figure aside, it has resulted in a completely

unqualified sociopathic thief to garner almost half the people when he should be polling in the 20's.

So apparently it only doesn't work for Democrats.

Yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

[jeff47]

26. Actually, Mitt should be destroying Obama, just because of the economy

The fact that he's under-performing might indicate his tactic of "nothing but namecalling" might not be a good idea.

[librechik]

7. name calling is what THEY do. And we don't do that. It's abuse.

Liberals still hope for a civil discourse in politics, as impossible as the RWers make that.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

9. I have no desire...

I have no desire to open up a dialog of any kind with American fascists.

Maybe you do: that's your moral failure, not mine.

It is NOT 'name calling' if the epithet is legitimate, warranted, and accurate.

[librechik]

15. You mistake me. In fact, I am in favor of calling them what they actually are: Nazis

Prescott Bush embraced them and never gave up. They facilitated the transfer of Nazi scientists into our secret programs, and then openly into society. I LOVE to call those Bush Nazis Nazis as they sputter and bark incoherently.

I'm just saying that as a cultural trait, liberals are educated enough (and psychoanalyzed enough) that we are capable of restraint in discourse, while the other side is simply not. In fact, their savagery is encouraged by their leaders, the Nazis. They told us they would wrap themselves in the flag and pound on the Bible when they defeated us. I believe them. Becasue they have.

Fascists--yes, but not the prototypical Franco-Italian kind where the military are on every corner and having parades every week down Main Street. These fascists are sneaky and hide behind average faces and nondescript business suits. We don't even realize we are dominated anyway, whether we see the tanks or not.

[brooklynite]

12. It's as irresponsible as RW Media using the phrase "Socialists"...

...and it doesn't resonate with voters in the middle.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. And yet you can turn on any channel today and see them use the word socialist

time and time again. And Rmoney is supposedly polling within the margin of error.

So by your logic, if the republicans would just stop calling the President names, they'd win this election walking away.

[brooklynite]

21. So your opinionis that our media should be as irresonsible as Fox?

No thanks.

[shcrane71]

30. Doesn't look like EgalitarianThug agrees with your irresponsible assumption.

That's probably why you missed the point that he/she was making.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. First, there is no "our" media just corporations competing with each other to promote

the same agenda. One you seem very comfortable promoting yourself.

And what works, works. Simple as that.

[Posteritatis]

33. "Communist" or "Stalinist" might be the better example

A lot of Democratic policies, at least ones advocated around here, are socialist, to which I can only really say "yes, and?"

The people who believe that the current government's "socialist" are probably just exaggerating a bit, but there's a big crowd convinced they're all evil commies or worse, which is a similar level of shrillness as calling any conservative policies "fascist." All it does is reinforce echo chambers and annoy people outside of them.

Well, maybe if we're talking about the Jobbik Party or the Golden Dawn or something like that. (Okay, it's actually straight-up accurate in the latter's case.)

[Initech]

13. Plutocrats is a far more accurate term, I feel.

[Nye Bevan]

14. My guess would be, because they are not.

As for "what we can do to change it", I would suggest you start your own public access TV show, or possibly video blog on the internet, where you could call "em" "fascists", "unicorns", or whatever else you like, to your heart's content.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. There is no single agreed-upon definition of 'Fascism'. I refer you

to Robert O. Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism where, in the introduction alone, he introduces (by my count) 15 often-overlapping and often-contradictory definitions and descriptions of the same.

Paxton goes so far as to suggest, without agreeing 100%, that the term 'fascist' has lost all meaning and become little more than an epithet one throws at those with whom one disagrees. To which I must plead mea culpa with regard to the Repigs.

[maxrandb]

24. I'd be happy if they would just fight back n/t

[shcrane71]

31. +1,000,000