If you want to keep your friends you are never supposed to talk about religion or politics. Today we are going to talk about both!
25 Comments
8/1/08 @ 9:25
Meandering
2 of my father in law’s favorite topics. The third is sports, not so agrumentative unless you don’t like the teams he does.
6/24/08 @ 17:31
steph
i agree with you nospinplease and i have read glenn becks books and watched his show. i am also a conservative from the same stand point as you but i disagree with the part on conservatives in this video because not all conservatives are like that unless you are really really far right. wich im not. i never use religon with my politics. i just never do because im not christian. im not anything, i dont have a religon.
i do agree with the liberals part though.
6/24/08 @ 14:35
Nospinplease
I am Conservative from the stand point of everyone is CREATED equal. If you read Glenn Becks book he shows you what happens when you change that statement to what our forefathers meant it to be. Liberals want people to become equal, but that is not what our forefathers wanted. The conservative view really changes from their so I guess you could say I am a constitutionalist.
5/30/08 @ 15:17
BILL FOWLER
THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD DESCRIPTION OF LIBERALS WANTING
TO TAKE FROM OTHERS TO GIVE TO THE “LESS FORTUNATE”.BUT A
REAL CONSERVATIVE WANTS TO BE LEFT ALONE BY THE GOVERNMENT
AND HISTORICALLY GIVE ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH OF THE INCOME
THEY HAVE “EARNED” TO CHARITABLE,[READ ACTUAL NEEDY]
CAUSES.THIS IS NOT HARD TO VERIFY FOR ANYONE ON WELFARE
WITH PLENTY OF TIME ON THEIR HANDS TO CHECK OUT.
BILL
5/13/08 @ 17:02
AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
I forgot to mention above ;)
One of the very basic reasons the Nazi regimes is considered Ultra Right Wing is because of how their basic ideology compares to the ideology of Communists.
Some of the main tenets behind Communism (the extreme far left) are forced equal distribution of wealth and resources for all, forced equal responsibility of productivity from all, and supposedly equality for all (though that never,ever works out in practice).
By contrast, the Nazi regime went far past the middle right ideology of “you deserve as much as you are willing to work for, industry is good, industriousness has it’s rewards and those who are industrious have every right to have more than those who are less industrious”. The Nazis went so far beyond this as to decide who was industrious (only Germanic or “Aryan” people), or who deserved the right to be industrious and successful (only Germanic or “Aryan” people), with no recourse for any other groups, and no place in the world for any other groups. No equality here (except within the chosen group). Hope this makes it more clear why Nazis are considered to be Ultra Rightists.
I think there is a knee jerk reaction from many people who consider themselves on the middle-right or conservative when they hear the Nazis called Ultra Right. They somehow feel they are being compared to Nazis and it’s troubling to them, though this is not the case at all. Anyone who would compare the middle right to the Ultra Right Nazi regime would have to be pretty much out of their mind, or just a fool. I don’t think anyone who is middle-right/conservative should be uncomfortable with the Nazi regime being called Ultra Right Wing.
It should be of concern to all (the middles-right and middle-left) that communist Russia and similar regimes (the Ultra Left) have done just as terrible things as the Ultra Right Nazis. (Well over 100 million killed in the 20th century by Communist regimes, possibly as many as 150 million). Yet sadly, there are many on the left in the US (and in many other moderate countries as well) who’s far left views are considered quite acceptable, even fashionable, and who are quite comfortable being compared to communists, and even embrace it.
There are also those who consider themselves rightists who are quite comfortable being compared to the Nazi regime, and even embrace it, though in their case all others, on the left and the right, soundly reject them. The groups I’m referring to are Neo-Nazis, Racist-Skinheads, and the KKK. Something to think about…
5/13/08 @ 16:42
Danny B
Just wanted to say I agree with your comments on Christian conservatives. I believe in smaller federal government, but I also believe that those of us who are Christians need to be more concerned with our “neighbor” than many of us currently are.
5/12/08 @ 23:34
AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
Sorry John Bay,
Can’t help the long post, anyway, it’s good to read, and good to embrace the marketplace of ideas.
I think some may be missing the fact that Mr Curly Hair is capping on both the left and the right, whether they be Christian or not, Democrat or Republican or not (generally speaking Democrats are liberals of some sort and Republicans are conservative of some sort, so whats the problem?). He’s capping on both parties and both sides of the cultural/ideology “Wars” for both being (generally speaking) hypocritical and full of what comes out of the south end of a north bound mule, and severely lacking in clear headed, sound minded common sense.
Those who lean either way will be somewhat offended here, or maybe very offended, because the groups you may identify yourself with are both being capped on, and very rightfully so.
As for the Nazi-Communist debate, the fact that they are so much the same makes the point that Mr Curly Hair was trying to make, go far enough one way or the other and you get the same result. They overlap in many ways, but they differ in many ways to. It’s important to keep in mind that a political partys name or a countries name often has little to do with their true ideology.
It’s like advertising, words have power over peoples minds, “Socialist” in the case of the Nazis, says: “We’re going to look out for the people, we care about German society and we will fix things up for the good of German Society, so trust us and get behind us.” When a communist or truly socialist country or party uses the words “Democratic” or “Peoples Republic”, it says “We are for the people, we’re here to listen to the people and work for the common good of the people according to what they want”, both messages are similar, and both are propoganda.
What makes people describe the Nazi regime as “Ultra Right Wing” is what they were on the surface (the appealing conservative ideals they used to influence the German people into falling in line), they promised a return to the good old days, before they were humiliated by losing The Great War, a return to the proud, strong agrarian Germany, and an end to all the progressive multi-culturalism (that’s what we’d call it now) that was supposedly destroying German culture. They claimed Christianity on the surface, though a perverted form of it, (it’s well known that this was a farce for the sake of the German people, Hitler and his cronies were Occultists), but on the surface they were for sticking with the status quo as far as the traditional Christian religions of Germany, as long as they didn’t get in their way. They were officially anti-gay (though homosexuality is known to have been secretly somewhat common within the Nazi party), anti liberal, anti-wasting money and effort to care for the poor and downtrodden. I could go on but why.
The point I’m really trying to make is this, (and I think it’s the point Mr Curly Hair was making), we should think of the left-right continuum not as a line, but a circle, go far enough one way or the other, and you end up at the same point, so to speak.
By the way, anyone who considers them self conservative, don’t be offended, I’m not saying that what the Nazis were are traits of conservatives, they are traits of an extremist ultra right regime using and twisting the basic conservative values of it’s people to steer a country into falling in line with an insane fascist ideaology bent on taking over the world and killing anyone who’s different.
To my estimation the Hitler regime was a totalitarian fascist regime operating under the guise of conservative ideology. The words “National ” and “Socialist” were just ear-candy for the people.
It’s important to remember that the minutia of the ideologies we associate with all of these words change from generation to generation. Now when people say liberal, most people think pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, environmentalist. When you said it in 1902 it would have meant something quite different than today, though with some overlapping ideologies no doubt. Just like how Democrat and Republican mean something quite different now than they did in 1860.
At any rate, I would say the same as motr_man, go back and watch the video again, but Listen this time…
5/10/08 @ 13:25
Bob
Please forgive all the prejudiced and biased people who think you should be able to cram into five minutes what it would take half the books in the Library of Congress to cover totally accurately. These critics don’t seem to grasp that simple fact. What I hear you doing is giving me some basic principles about differences that I can use to do some critical thinking and objective analysis on my own. I don’t think you’re teaching a graduate course in any subject, so I don’t criticize. I see only that you are suggesting areas of discourse, debate, conversation, and rational thought which I ought to be able to explore further on my own–that is, unless I’ve already been indoctrinated, duped, and brainwashed by “higher education.” Keep up the good work. Help make us think things through.
Oh, by the way, when it comes to Christians or Christianity, you made some excellent points. However, if you want to know the full story, please, please read the excellent work of research and scholarship by George Barna and Frank Viola, a book called “Pagan Christianity.” We’ve been waiting 1700 years for this perspective on history to be printed. Thank God it has finally come to us now when we need it most.
5/8/08 @ 8:54
Nupabartypitly
well done, guy
5/5/08 @ 2:49
Jim
This was amazing i loved this 1 keep up the good work
5/2/08 @ 13:50
Scott
@motr_man
“So many non-arguments cleverly disguised to look like relevant points.”
Not making an argument. I’m asking a question that I would really like an answer to. Everyone seems to “know” that Communism and Fascism are the extreme opposites of the right-left political spectrum. How exactly? What is the scale?
“Socialist is a word. Just because it appears in a parties’ name doesn’t mean anything.”
I would say it doesn’t “necessarily” mean anything. Were Nazis in fact socialists? No, but they had some socialist tendencies. They weren’t all Fascist either according to most definitions. Communist countries in particular seem to love using the words Democratic and Republic even though they are neither. But I think the Nazis called themselves socialist for a reason.
Mussolini said “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism”.
I have heard that, and I guess he would know, but does that mean our right-left scale is purely about corporatism? There seem to be a lot of other factors involved in whether something is considered right or left. Attitude and policy toward business just doesn’t seem to cover it all. If that is just part of it, what are the other parts? Internationalism is probably part too, but that doesn’t seem to cover it properly either.
“Today’s conservatives and their leaders are very tight with and supportive of the American corporation culture.”
Don’t forget today’s liberals and their leaders (but especially their leaders). Regulating or licensing business — establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy and thereby preventing them from challenging state authority is corporatism too.
“Then there is the Patriot Act . . . a giant step toward fascism and a concrete example of how extreme conservatism unchecked will eventually lead to Fascism.”
Extreme conservatism doesn’t go anywhere. It would be an extreme attempt to leave things just the way they are no matter how they are. If I live in a Socialist country and I like things the way they are I would be a conservative socialist. :-)
5/2/08 @ 10:42
Kevin
This was an excellent overview of beliefs, political and religious, and he makes excellent points in regards to Christian behavior. If we as Christians truly did what Jesus calls us to do as written in Matthew 5 and 6 the government could get out of the charity business and stop taking my money and giving it to things I don’t agree with or believe in.
For Keith; As a Christian I am not against ‘gay’ rights. I am for everyone’s God given rights; rights derived from Almighty God and not government. You shouldn’t be granted ‘rights’ based on what someone considers their sexual orientation. Christian’s can’t condone what the Bible calls sin, not just homosexual behavior, but also immoral behavior outside the bounds of God created and ordained marriage. The Bible says that the poor will always be with us but says that we sould help anyway. It also clearly states that homosexual behavior (Romans 1:27) is not a behavior accepted by God.
5/2/08 @ 0:02
Keith
This was a difficult episode for me to watch, as I unashamedly call myself a liberal. The distinction between conservative/liberal is often treated only in political terms, i.e., what should the role of government taxation/program be? None, some, lots, total? America seems to fall into the “some” camp, most of Europe into the “lots” camp. I have seen the benefits of both of these camps first hand; they each have their merits.
But an untreated topic in conservative/liberal discussions involves social policy. The so-called “culture wars” have always baffled me. For the most part, those who identity as “conservative” tend to be pro-life, anti-gay and “liberals” the opposite. But in this scenario, aren’t the “conservatives” just advocating a bigger government that dictates how people live? I can hedge on the abortion issue, but I truly don’t see why “conservatives” have devoted so much attention to opposition of gay rights. So deep is their opposition, that those conservatives who are also Christian often seem to have forgotten their religion’s teachings on helping the poor. Far more efforts seem to go towards opposing gay rights than helping the poor.
This, for me, is the bigger reason I align with the liberals over the conservatives.
5/1/08 @ 23:48
John Bay
Death to the long posts! If you can’t speak your mind in 100 characters or less, you should be cut o
5/1/08 @ 23:35
motr_man
To Scott, Adam and JJ,
I think you guys all totally missed the point. Maybe you should go back to Monday’s episode on having an open mind. You don’t have to agree with everything they said, but none of you seemed to considering the other side and it makes you look like knee-jerk reactionaries.
JJ - Why so bent out of shape that they applied their own “interpretation” to what it means to be a Christian? Of course they did! Just like they gave us their interpretation of the global warming data and everything else. It too bad you only seem to consider one side - the interpretations you are comfortable with. And if everything was too lumped together for you, please see Todd’s comment.
Scott - So many non-arguments cleverly disguised to look like relevant points. Socialist is a word. Just because it appears in a parties’ name doesn’t mean anything. Calling East Germany the “German Democratic Republic” doesn’t make it democratic or a republic! Mussolini said “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism” and today’s conservatives and their leaders are very tight with and supportive of the American corporation culture. Then there is the Patriot Act (sponsored and supported by mostly conservatives) - a giant step toward fascism and a concrete example of how extreme conservatism unchecked will eventually lead to fascism.
Adam - They never said all conservatives are Christians, just like they also didn’t say that all liberals are rich. Go back and LISTEN this time! Also they never advocated giving money to the government. All they said was if all Christians gave as their religion dictates there wouldn’t need to be liberal programs (like welfare). Perhaps you should actually make sure you understand what what was said in the video before telling them they need to do more research.
I wish there were more time to debate the minutia with all three of you, but there isn’t. Sadly, most people who post without really thinking about the other side aren’t open to new thoughts anyway. All I can say is “start watching again at Monday.” Maybe it will sink in this time.
5/1/08 @ 18:17
Adam
Scott I completely agree, you said basically the same thing I was going to say and was thinking when he said it in the video- Nazis were not extreme right/ultra conservative like so many people think today. This is touted by so much of the media and the left today and has become “common knowledge” but like so many other things like that, it is just wrong, inaccurate. The Nazi party was, exactly like you said Scott, the National SOCIALIST party, they were on the political left. And the question about who to support at that time, Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, is NOT a difficult one like he presumes in the video: they aren’t opposite ends of the political spectrum, they’re both on the left, it is simply a question of the lesser of two evils. Hitler was at the time a greater threat to the world, he wanted to take over the entire planet; you can make a decent case though that Stalin was just as bad or even worse of a guy- he killed more people after all, but hey that’s another little “inconvenient truth” that most of history likes to forget. We didn’t side with Russia because Stalin was good, we did it because Germany was worse and was the more immediate threat; heck look at what happended immediately after WWII ended- we entered a cold war with Russia that lasted for decades.
As for this video overall though, I was much less impressed than with the global warming alarmism video. He uses gross generalizations the whole way through and really displays a lack of understanding of the core basis of liberalism or conservatism. It isn’t about parties but basic worldview and ideology, as JJ said. He categorizes anyone that is a conservative as a “conservative Christian”, and while many conservatives are Christians and vice versa, it is also true that many Christians are not necessarily conservatives and that many conservatives are not adherents to any faith, much less Christianity. My parents and many people I know from the Christian University I went to are examples of this, aligning more to the left or at least not calling themselves conservatives, while I am a Christian and a conservative. So he displays a lack of understanding people there, but also shows that he doesn’t necessarily understand the Christian faith or the Bible either. He quoted several verses from the Bible but I think missed the point of them. Simply put, the Bible tells Christians and the Church to take care of the poor/needy, not give your money to the government so they can do a pisspoor job of taking care of the needy for you. Christians are supposed to take care of our fellow humans yes, but that hardly means supporting failing government programs that don’t work and create a welfare state, and moreover we are supposed to be good stewards of money that (as he pointed out) is God’s anyway. God’s, not the government’s. If God entrusts me with money and I’m supposed to use it to help others, I’m going to support the best means of helping people, and from every indication, that is as far away from government coffers as possible. Future videos would do better with more research and true understanding of the topics.
5/1/08 @ 18:08
Zak
I am of the opinion that not only Christians, but Americans in general, would be even more giving than they already are (we are the most giving nation on the planet) if the government didn’t take so much of what we earned away. Good Show.
5/1/08 @ 9:15
Scott
I have never understood how Communists = left and Nazis = right. Everyone seems to know that Nazis were ultra-conservative. How exactly?
Were they for limited government? No.
Did they promote individualism and personal responsibility over the “collective good”? No.
Were they the National Socialist German Worker’s Party? Yes. Socialism is not typically held to be conservatism.
Nazis were nationalistic and conservatives tend to be nationalistic, but so were the Communists. Nationalism is not conservatism.
The only left-right scale that makes any sense to me is (starting on the left): Communism (state owns everything), Socialism aka Nazis (state controls but does not own everything), Big Government types, Middle, Small Government types, and Anarchists. You have complete government control and ownership on the extreme left and no government at all on the far right.
The United States Constitution was written by small (federal) government types. It is based on limited government with enumerated powers. Every other power not specifically listed was supposed to be left to the states or the people. It isn’t that way anymore. People may not want it that way anymore, but the “Supreme Law of the Land” says that is the way it should be.
So the challenge is . . . if Nazis are on the far right and communists on the far left, what is the scale supposed to be? The only thing I can think of is the “How much they didn’t like each other” scale.
5/1/08 @ 8:39
Jacob
Ha! Beautiful! Keep it coming, my good man.
Not that you’re “my” man… I er… okay, nevermind.
5/1/08 @ 8:30
Laura B
Wow! I love this site! I’m sure some are “deeply offended” by what’s here, but the truth hurts! Loved the Gobal Warming “Alarmism” stuff. So true! I remember in high school hearing about the Acid Rain Doomsday. Maybe I missed it? When did it happen? Holy Cow! I missed Doomsday!
5/1/08 @ 5:31
Jeff Green
While I would certainly agree with your point yesterday that alarmism is a bad thing, you did forget one crucial word in your discussion of CO2 - excessive. I’ll not go into detail here and I’ll save that for the [22] convention you’re holding in the NY Metro area.
As for today’s show about liberals and conservatives, it’s like you’ve been reading my daily posts for the past 6 years and I can assure you that both Republicans and Democrats in these here parts despise me equally. My friends in the Green party (of which I am a member) wish I would take my political altruism and put it in the netherparts.
You were right on target today and you’re in good company.
Jeff
5/1/08 @ 2:49
Bryan
Great show again guys. While I do agree with JJ’s statement that liberalism and conservatism are ideologies and not parties, liberals and conservatives tend to make their political homes in one or the other major party. I do, however, still think that most politicians want what they believe is right for the country but are all to willing to give up their integrity in order to try to have their party gain or remain in control. Kind of a “the end justifies the means” mentality. The ones I do worry about are the extremist on either side. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that people in the middle of the road (moderates) are the ones who will be run over. I believe the ones riding the edges of that road are the ones who are going to fall in the ditch. Most Americans tend to be a lot wiser than most politicians. They realize that it is a partnership between the citizens and the government that works best for the country. Moderation in all things, including government.
5/1/08 @ 0:18
Andrea_cro
You are now in my favs. :)
4/30/08 @ 21:31
Todd Winn
In the scope of the WYOTK time frame I felt this one was entertaining and to the point. Sure there were broad generalizations and there have to be in this time frame. Point is there are people on both sides that don’t fit in this discussion, but the stereo types were spot on! Now that’s enlightened entertainment! Especially if it caused you to pause and think for a moment.
4/30/08 @ 21:17
JJ
I thought that the global warming episode was good but this one was very presumptuous.
Liberals and conservatives are not parties, they are ideologies. Yes, parties exist to maintain their power but those ideologies are not parties. Ideologies are the paradigms that dictate actions. There is a big difference and this episode lumped parties and ideologies into one.
As far as “Christians” go, you applied your own interpretation and said it in a way that made it seem that only an idiot wouldn’t see it exactly like you do.
April 30th, 2008 
25 Comments
Meandering
2 of my father in law’s favorite topics. The third is sports, not so agrumentative unless you don’t like the teams he does.
steph
i agree with you nospinplease and i have read glenn becks books and watched his show. i am also a conservative from the same stand point as you but i disagree with the part on conservatives in this video because not all conservatives are like that unless you are really really far right. wich im not. i never use religon with my politics. i just never do because im not christian. im not anything, i dont have a religon.
i do agree with the liberals part though.
Nospinplease
I am Conservative from the stand point of everyone is CREATED equal. If you read Glenn Becks book he shows you what happens when you change that statement to what our forefathers meant it to be. Liberals want people to become equal, but that is not what our forefathers wanted. The conservative view really changes from their so I guess you could say I am a constitutionalist.
BILL FOWLER
THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD DESCRIPTION OF LIBERALS WANTING
TO TAKE FROM OTHERS TO GIVE TO THE “LESS FORTUNATE”.BUT A
REAL CONSERVATIVE WANTS TO BE LEFT ALONE BY THE GOVERNMENT
AND HISTORICALLY GIVE ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH OF THE INCOME
THEY HAVE “EARNED” TO CHARITABLE,[READ ACTUAL NEEDY]
CAUSES.THIS IS NOT HARD TO VERIFY FOR ANYONE ON WELFARE
WITH PLENTY OF TIME ON THEIR HANDS TO CHECK OUT.
BILL
AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
I forgot to mention above ;)
One of the very basic reasons the Nazi regimes is considered Ultra Right Wing is because of how their basic ideology compares to the ideology of Communists.
Some of the main tenets behind Communism (the extreme far left) are forced equal distribution of wealth and resources for all, forced equal responsibility of productivity from all, and supposedly equality for all (though that never,ever works out in practice).
By contrast, the Nazi regime went far past the middle right ideology of “you deserve as much as you are willing to work for, industry is good, industriousness has it’s rewards and those who are industrious have every right to have more than those who are less industrious”. The Nazis went so far beyond this as to decide who was industrious (only Germanic or “Aryan” people), or who deserved the right to be industrious and successful (only Germanic or “Aryan” people), with no recourse for any other groups, and no place in the world for any other groups. No equality here (except within the chosen group). Hope this makes it more clear why Nazis are considered to be Ultra Rightists.
I think there is a knee jerk reaction from many people who consider themselves on the middle-right or conservative when they hear the Nazis called Ultra Right. They somehow feel they are being compared to Nazis and it’s troubling to them, though this is not the case at all. Anyone who would compare the middle right to the Ultra Right Nazi regime would have to be pretty much out of their mind, or just a fool. I don’t think anyone who is middle-right/conservative should be uncomfortable with the Nazi regime being called Ultra Right Wing.
It should be of concern to all (the middles-right and middle-left) that communist Russia and similar regimes (the Ultra Left) have done just as terrible things as the Ultra Right Nazis. (Well over 100 million killed in the 20th century by Communist regimes, possibly as many as 150 million). Yet sadly, there are many on the left in the US (and in many other moderate countries as well) who’s far left views are considered quite acceptable, even fashionable, and who are quite comfortable being compared to communists, and even embrace it.
There are also those who consider themselves rightists who are quite comfortable being compared to the Nazi regime, and even embrace it, though in their case all others, on the left and the right, soundly reject them. The groups I’m referring to are Neo-Nazis, Racist-Skinheads, and the KKK. Something to think about…
Danny B
Just wanted to say I agree with your comments on Christian conservatives. I believe in smaller federal government, but I also believe that those of us who are Christians need to be more concerned with our “neighbor” than many of us currently are.
AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)
Sorry John Bay,
Can’t help the long post, anyway, it’s good to read, and good to embrace the marketplace of ideas.
I think some may be missing the fact that Mr Curly Hair is capping on both the left and the right, whether they be Christian or not, Democrat or Republican or not (generally speaking Democrats are liberals of some sort and Republicans are conservative of some sort, so whats the problem?). He’s capping on both parties and both sides of the cultural/ideology “Wars” for both being (generally speaking) hypocritical and full of what comes out of the south end of a north bound mule, and severely lacking in clear headed, sound minded common sense.
Those who lean either way will be somewhat offended here, or maybe very offended, because the groups you may identify yourself with are both being capped on, and very rightfully so.
As for the Nazi-Communist debate, the fact that they are so much the same makes the point that Mr Curly Hair was trying to make, go far enough one way or the other and you get the same result. They overlap in many ways, but they differ in many ways to. It’s important to keep in mind that a political partys name or a countries name often has little to do with their true ideology.
It’s like advertising, words have power over peoples minds, “Socialist” in the case of the Nazis, says: “We’re going to look out for the people, we care about German society and we will fix things up for the good of German Society, so trust us and get behind us.” When a communist or truly socialist country or party uses the words “Democratic” or “Peoples Republic”, it says “We are for the people, we’re here to listen to the people and work for the common good of the people according to what they want”, both messages are similar, and both are propoganda.
What makes people describe the Nazi regime as “Ultra Right Wing” is what they were on the surface (the appealing conservative ideals they used to influence the German people into falling in line), they promised a return to the good old days, before they were humiliated by losing The Great War, a return to the proud, strong agrarian Germany, and an end to all the progressive multi-culturalism (that’s what we’d call it now) that was supposedly destroying German culture. They claimed Christianity on the surface, though a perverted form of it, (it’s well known that this was a farce for the sake of the German people, Hitler and his cronies were Occultists), but on the surface they were for sticking with the status quo as far as the traditional Christian religions of Germany, as long as they didn’t get in their way. They were officially anti-gay (though homosexuality is known to have been secretly somewhat common within the Nazi party), anti liberal, anti-wasting money and effort to care for the poor and downtrodden. I could go on but why.
The point I’m really trying to make is this, (and I think it’s the point Mr Curly Hair was making), we should think of the left-right continuum not as a line, but a circle, go far enough one way or the other, and you end up at the same point, so to speak.
By the way, anyone who considers them self conservative, don’t be offended, I’m not saying that what the Nazis were are traits of conservatives, they are traits of an extremist ultra right regime using and twisting the basic conservative values of it’s people to steer a country into falling in line with an insane fascist ideaology bent on taking over the world and killing anyone who’s different.
To my estimation the Hitler regime was a totalitarian fascist regime operating under the guise of conservative ideology. The words “National ” and “Socialist” were just ear-candy for the people.
It’s important to remember that the minutia of the ideologies we associate with all of these words change from generation to generation. Now when people say liberal, most people think pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, environmentalist. When you said it in 1902 it would have meant something quite different than today, though with some overlapping ideologies no doubt. Just like how Democrat and Republican mean something quite different now than they did in 1860.
At any rate, I would say the same as motr_man, go back and watch the video again, but Listen this time…
Bob
Please forgive all the prejudiced and biased people who think you should be able to cram into five minutes what it would take half the books in the Library of Congress to cover totally accurately. These critics don’t seem to grasp that simple fact. What I hear you doing is giving me some basic principles about differences that I can use to do some critical thinking and objective analysis on my own. I don’t think you’re teaching a graduate course in any subject, so I don’t criticize. I see only that you are suggesting areas of discourse, debate, conversation, and rational thought which I ought to be able to explore further on my own–that is, unless I’ve already been indoctrinated, duped, and brainwashed by “higher education.” Keep up the good work. Help make us think things through.
Oh, by the way, when it comes to Christians or Christianity, you made some excellent points. However, if you want to know the full story, please, please read the excellent work of research and scholarship by George Barna and Frank Viola, a book called “Pagan Christianity.” We’ve been waiting 1700 years for this perspective on history to be printed. Thank God it has finally come to us now when we need it most.
Nupabartypitly
well done, guy
Jim
This was amazing i loved this 1 keep up the good work
Scott
@motr_man
“So many non-arguments cleverly disguised to look like relevant points.”
Not making an argument. I’m asking a question that I would really like an answer to. Everyone seems to “know” that Communism and Fascism are the extreme opposites of the right-left political spectrum. How exactly? What is the scale?
“Socialist is a word. Just because it appears in a parties’ name doesn’t mean anything.”
I would say it doesn’t “necessarily” mean anything. Were Nazis in fact socialists? No, but they had some socialist tendencies. They weren’t all Fascist either according to most definitions. Communist countries in particular seem to love using the words Democratic and Republic even though they are neither. But I think the Nazis called themselves socialist for a reason.
Mussolini said “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism”.
I have heard that, and I guess he would know, but does that mean our right-left scale is purely about corporatism? There seem to be a lot of other factors involved in whether something is considered right or left. Attitude and policy toward business just doesn’t seem to cover it all. If that is just part of it, what are the other parts? Internationalism is probably part too, but that doesn’t seem to cover it properly either.
“Today’s conservatives and their leaders are very tight with and supportive of the American corporation culture.”
Don’t forget today’s liberals and their leaders (but especially their leaders). Regulating or licensing business — establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy and thereby preventing them from challenging state authority is corporatism too.
“Then there is the Patriot Act . . . a giant step toward fascism and a concrete example of how extreme conservatism unchecked will eventually lead to Fascism.”
Extreme conservatism doesn’t go anywhere. It would be an extreme attempt to leave things just the way they are no matter how they are. If I live in a Socialist country and I like things the way they are I would be a conservative socialist. :-)
Kevin
This was an excellent overview of beliefs, political and religious, and he makes excellent points in regards to Christian behavior. If we as Christians truly did what Jesus calls us to do as written in Matthew 5 and 6 the government could get out of the charity business and stop taking my money and giving it to things I don’t agree with or believe in.
For Keith; As a Christian I am not against ‘gay’ rights. I am for everyone’s God given rights; rights derived from Almighty God and not government. You shouldn’t be granted ‘rights’ based on what someone considers their sexual orientation. Christian’s can’t condone what the Bible calls sin, not just homosexual behavior, but also immoral behavior outside the bounds of God created and ordained marriage. The Bible says that the poor will always be with us but says that we sould help anyway. It also clearly states that homosexual behavior (Romans 1:27) is not a behavior accepted by God.
Keith
This was a difficult episode for me to watch, as I unashamedly call myself a liberal. The distinction between conservative/liberal is often treated only in political terms, i.e., what should the role of government taxation/program be? None, some, lots, total? America seems to fall into the “some” camp, most of Europe into the “lots” camp. I have seen the benefits of both of these camps first hand; they each have their merits.
But an untreated topic in conservative/liberal discussions involves social policy. The so-called “culture wars” have always baffled me. For the most part, those who identity as “conservative” tend to be pro-life, anti-gay and “liberals” the opposite. But in this scenario, aren’t the “conservatives” just advocating a bigger government that dictates how people live? I can hedge on the abortion issue, but I truly don’t see why “conservatives” have devoted so much attention to opposition of gay rights. So deep is their opposition, that those conservatives who are also Christian often seem to have forgotten their religion’s teachings on helping the poor. Far more efforts seem to go towards opposing gay rights than helping the poor.
This, for me, is the bigger reason I align with the liberals over the conservatives.
John Bay
Death to the long posts! If you can’t speak your mind in 100 characters or less, you should be cut o
motr_man
To Scott, Adam and JJ,
I think you guys all totally missed the point. Maybe you should go back to Monday’s episode on having an open mind. You don’t have to agree with everything they said, but none of you seemed to considering the other side and it makes you look like knee-jerk reactionaries.
JJ - Why so bent out of shape that they applied their own “interpretation” to what it means to be a Christian? Of course they did! Just like they gave us their interpretation of the global warming data and everything else. It too bad you only seem to consider one side - the interpretations you are comfortable with. And if everything was too lumped together for you, please see Todd’s comment.
Scott - So many non-arguments cleverly disguised to look like relevant points. Socialist is a word. Just because it appears in a parties’ name doesn’t mean anything. Calling East Germany the “German Democratic Republic” doesn’t make it democratic or a republic! Mussolini said “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism” and today’s conservatives and their leaders are very tight with and supportive of the American corporation culture. Then there is the Patriot Act (sponsored and supported by mostly conservatives) - a giant step toward fascism and a concrete example of how extreme conservatism unchecked will eventually lead to fascism.
Adam - They never said all conservatives are Christians, just like they also didn’t say that all liberals are rich. Go back and LISTEN this time! Also they never advocated giving money to the government. All they said was if all Christians gave as their religion dictates there wouldn’t need to be liberal programs (like welfare). Perhaps you should actually make sure you understand what what was said in the video before telling them they need to do more research.
I wish there were more time to debate the minutia with all three of you, but there isn’t. Sadly, most people who post without really thinking about the other side aren’t open to new thoughts anyway. All I can say is “start watching again at Monday.” Maybe it will sink in this time.
Adam
Scott I completely agree, you said basically the same thing I was going to say and was thinking when he said it in the video- Nazis were not extreme right/ultra conservative like so many people think today. This is touted by so much of the media and the left today and has become “common knowledge” but like so many other things like that, it is just wrong, inaccurate. The Nazi party was, exactly like you said Scott, the National SOCIALIST party, they were on the political left. And the question about who to support at that time, Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, is NOT a difficult one like he presumes in the video: they aren’t opposite ends of the political spectrum, they’re both on the left, it is simply a question of the lesser of two evils. Hitler was at the time a greater threat to the world, he wanted to take over the entire planet; you can make a decent case though that Stalin was just as bad or even worse of a guy- he killed more people after all, but hey that’s another little “inconvenient truth” that most of history likes to forget. We didn’t side with Russia because Stalin was good, we did it because Germany was worse and was the more immediate threat; heck look at what happended immediately after WWII ended- we entered a cold war with Russia that lasted for decades.
As for this video overall though, I was much less impressed than with the global warming alarmism video. He uses gross generalizations the whole way through and really displays a lack of understanding of the core basis of liberalism or conservatism. It isn’t about parties but basic worldview and ideology, as JJ said. He categorizes anyone that is a conservative as a “conservative Christian”, and while many conservatives are Christians and vice versa, it is also true that many Christians are not necessarily conservatives and that many conservatives are not adherents to any faith, much less Christianity. My parents and many people I know from the Christian University I went to are examples of this, aligning more to the left or at least not calling themselves conservatives, while I am a Christian and a conservative. So he displays a lack of understanding people there, but also shows that he doesn’t necessarily understand the Christian faith or the Bible either. He quoted several verses from the Bible but I think missed the point of them. Simply put, the Bible tells Christians and the Church to take care of the poor/needy, not give your money to the government so they can do a pisspoor job of taking care of the needy for you. Christians are supposed to take care of our fellow humans yes, but that hardly means supporting failing government programs that don’t work and create a welfare state, and moreover we are supposed to be good stewards of money that (as he pointed out) is God’s anyway. God’s, not the government’s. If God entrusts me with money and I’m supposed to use it to help others, I’m going to support the best means of helping people, and from every indication, that is as far away from government coffers as possible. Future videos would do better with more research and true understanding of the topics.
Zak
I am of the opinion that not only Christians, but Americans in general, would be even more giving than they already are (we are the most giving nation on the planet) if the government didn’t take so much of what we earned away. Good Show.
Scott
I have never understood how Communists = left and Nazis = right. Everyone seems to know that Nazis were ultra-conservative. How exactly?
Were they for limited government? No.
Did they promote individualism and personal responsibility over the “collective good”? No.
Were they the National Socialist German Worker’s Party? Yes. Socialism is not typically held to be conservatism.
Nazis were nationalistic and conservatives tend to be nationalistic, but so were the Communists. Nationalism is not conservatism.
The only left-right scale that makes any sense to me is (starting on the left): Communism (state owns everything), Socialism aka Nazis (state controls but does not own everything), Big Government types, Middle, Small Government types, and Anarchists. You have complete government control and ownership on the extreme left and no government at all on the far right.
The United States Constitution was written by small (federal) government types. It is based on limited government with enumerated powers. Every other power not specifically listed was supposed to be left to the states or the people. It isn’t that way anymore. People may not want it that way anymore, but the “Supreme Law of the Land” says that is the way it should be.
So the challenge is . . . if Nazis are on the far right and communists on the far left, what is the scale supposed to be? The only thing I can think of is the “How much they didn’t like each other” scale.
Jacob
Ha! Beautiful! Keep it coming, my good man.
Not that you’re “my” man… I er… okay, nevermind.
Laura B
Wow! I love this site! I’m sure some are “deeply offended” by what’s here, but the truth hurts! Loved the Gobal Warming “Alarmism” stuff. So true! I remember in high school hearing about the Acid Rain Doomsday. Maybe I missed it? When did it happen? Holy Cow! I missed Doomsday!
Jeff Green
While I would certainly agree with your point yesterday that alarmism is a bad thing, you did forget one crucial word in your discussion of CO2 - excessive. I’ll not go into detail here and I’ll save that for the [22] convention you’re holding in the NY Metro area.
As for today’s show about liberals and conservatives, it’s like you’ve been reading my daily posts for the past 6 years and I can assure you that both Republicans and Democrats in these here parts despise me equally. My friends in the Green party (of which I am a member) wish I would take my political altruism and put it in the netherparts.
You were right on target today and you’re in good company.
Jeff
Bryan
Great show again guys. While I do agree with JJ’s statement that liberalism and conservatism are ideologies and not parties, liberals and conservatives tend to make their political homes in one or the other major party. I do, however, still think that most politicians want what they believe is right for the country but are all to willing to give up their integrity in order to try to have their party gain or remain in control. Kind of a “the end justifies the means” mentality. The ones I do worry about are the extremist on either side. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that people in the middle of the road (moderates) are the ones who will be run over. I believe the ones riding the edges of that road are the ones who are going to fall in the ditch. Most Americans tend to be a lot wiser than most politicians. They realize that it is a partnership between the citizens and the government that works best for the country. Moderation in all things, including government.
Andrea_cro
You are now in my favs. :)
Todd Winn
In the scope of the WYOTK time frame I felt this one was entertaining and to the point. Sure there were broad generalizations and there have to be in this time frame. Point is there are people on both sides that don’t fit in this discussion, but the stereo types were spot on! Now that’s enlightened entertainment! Especially if it caused you to pause and think for a moment.
JJ
I thought that the global warming episode was good but this one was very presumptuous.
Liberals and conservatives are not parties, they are ideologies. Yes, parties exist to maintain their power but those ideologies are not parties. Ideologies are the paradigms that dictate actions. There is a big difference and this episode lumped parties and ideologies into one.
As far as “Christians” go, you applied your own interpretation and said it in a way that made it seem that only an idiot wouldn’t see it exactly like you do.