@ JEM:
Wow. Just imagine all the starving Irishmen being signed on for indentured servitude and singing in the warm Confederate sun.

Yes, once I put the FUSTER stamp of approval on your article, the outpouring of adulation was sure to follow.

@ adam:
thanks. I sorta remembered Plessy as being not all that tough a case to decide and it being pretty hard to think it correctly decided.

@ narciso:
narc, did you not read adam calling it a tough case? It's been forever since I've read it, but if adam thinks that there's a case for declaring it well-decided, I'm interested in having him lay it out.

@ adam:
I would like to hear you make your case for the decision in Plessy.

@ JEM:
I shall succumb to entreaty, JEM, and give it another try.

@ JEM:
JEM, thanks for the considerate reply. Let me say that I did read political philosophy seriously for some time and I have been told that the book gets interesting later, but that doesn't change my initial point that Goldberg stacks the deck by using a defective definition of fascism.

For all I know, it was merely a marketing gimmick to popularize something more serious.

@ Scientific Socialist:
That's pretty interesting. Tell me which branch of progressives adhere to the notion that any and all means are legitimate when employed by themselves.

Goldwater progressives?
Stalinist progressives?
Fascist progressives?

@ JEM:
You're right. A couple of dozen pages into the thing was as far as I got.
Goldberg was hopelessly lost by then, having failed to define fascism well, and IIRC saying that the US was under a fascist regime during some part or maybe all of the first WW.
I guess I'm not generous enough to think that he was a serious man writing a serious book instead of just a guy jerking around.
Maybe if I waited for the good parts....

@ CK MacLeod:
You're quite right about the figures being dated. And in just about everything you've said on this thread.
I hope that you'll forgive me for pushing the point about definitions, but I spent far too much time having that point drilled into my little green head.
Without definition of terms, you end up with unnecessary confusion.
That's how you get people thinking that a book titled "Liberal Fascism" actually is serious in making the case.

CK MacLeod wrote:

@ fuster:
That’s just silly, in poll after poll for many years, self-identified American conservatives have outnumbered liberals by around 2 to 1.

How they self-identify ain't in accord with what they support. Mostly, they're conserving the New Deal policies.
Those Gallup polls that have 31% Cons and 17% Libs also have more people than not saying that labor unions should have more influence, and government doesn't regulate business too much.
(Gallup 2004)

@ CK MacLeod:
well, of course there are far fewer mainstream conservatives, so you may well be correct about the number.

percentages may vary depending on definitions.

fuster wrote:

I await the reaction when Beck gets around to outing the RINO Lincoln and denouncing Lincoln’s unconstitutional plunge onto the pit of Big Governmen

I wrote this thinking that it was obviously satirical. I remain a fool.


Despite the one instance of real public discord, the Campaign for Liberty events went off without a hitch, including “Friend of Foe? Abraham Lincoln on Liberty”

with Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute and “ You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror” with TAC’s own literary editor Kelly Jane Torrance moderating and Philip Giraldi participating on the panel.

Every now and again, Exalted One, you throw straight and true.

@ Sully:
I say that by throwing in with Beck, your "movement" adds a little spice to its tastelessness.
I await the reaction when Beck gets around to outing the RINO Lincoln and denouncing Lincoln's unconstitutional plunge onto the pit of Big Government.