Skip to main content

I have been struck at the number of similarities the Rabid Frothing Clown Party has with the Soviet, Chinese and other Communist governments we have seen.

Firstly, there is the spiraling demand for being better and better cons.  There are the ideological officers testing the bona fides of all Party members to adhere ever more closely to ever more extreme dogma.  One must be Christian enough, not just a believer in Christ, but born again, defender of all unborn, condemner of all not born-again Christians.  One must not just favor limited government, one must be willing to bring down the government.  The answer to failed Communism was always more Communism.  The answer to the failures of conservatism is always ever more pure conservatism.

Second, theirs is ideology in service not of the nation or its people, but in service of capturing and holding power.  The ideology has always been a means and not an end, a rallying cry for forces who care only about power.  Conservatives have driven government policy to the right for 40-some years, but that drive hasn't benefited the nation, and when given the chance, didn't make government smaller, just less competent.  What it has served is to establish and reinforce the insider power structure in which there is no accountability and which feeds off directed government largesse.  It is truly power for its own sake and power for the sake of further privileging the privileged.  Communism always served this same purpose, preserving the power structure rather than serving the people.

More below the orange snail.

Thirdly, the concentration of power serves a very small group that serve each other.  The power of the Communist Politburos and their circle was very narrowly distributed and very jealously guarded.  The powerful conservatives in this country serve each other and are not interested in any way in expanding their number.  They seek to destroy anyone who would try to expand access to power.

Fourth, a segment of the population is riled up to be used against the rest of society.  Xenophobic, dogmatic, rabid and violent, the Tea Party is an old, gray Red Guard, Mao's anarchistic private army, or Pol Pot's children, or the legions of Soviet, East German and other Communist citizens informing on and denouncing each other.  Anarchy serves those who would assert power most voraciously.

Fifth is the ability to inflict damage within the society in the interest of creating fear that begs for authoritarian power.  Nixon rode in as the new sheriff when America was in turmoil, which turmoil was fostered by reactionary violence and perfidy by the powerful.  Riots incited by police shootings, visible armed assault against already oppressed people made problems worse, and served the interests of the conservative power base.

Sixth is using incitement of fear of The Other, the Communists' use of the Imperialist, the Americans as abusers of national rights and sovereignty that lined up citizens against non-Communist nations, principally the United States.

These are the time-tested tactics for power-seekers who cannot appeal to or generate a majority though policies that benefit the public and the nation.  Constant conflict, war, confrontation, agitation, oppression all serve authoritarian power-seekers.

These are the tactics of the Rabid Frothing Clown Party and they serve the same strategy of achieving power for its own sake.  They are the new Communists.

My apologies for the low quality image -- I am not a Printshop pro, by any means.

Originally posted to GoBlue08 on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 06:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "opposing creeping liberalism" (7+ / 0-)

    is not an ideaology, but an idea.  Xenophobia, Misogyny, and Paranoia are  not ideologies, but ideas.  really bad ones.

    "Limited government, lower taxes, and more efficient delivery of government provided services" is an ideaology.  

    Heritage foundation just augered in-Intellectually bankrupt.  

  •  Or, as Nietzsche said, (12+ / 0-)

    "Be careful when fighting monsters, that you do not become one yourself" Paraphrased of course. Still, the parallels are impossible to ignore. Well done putting into words what I've been sensing for so long. A country that used to dream amazing things can barely crawl now.

    •  It's Not a Country At All. It's a Market nt (10+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 07:00:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One Market Under God (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A brilliant book by Thomas Frank, highly recommended.

      •  WOW! Spot on the money! (6+ / 0-)

        Since Nixon it never has been about the country. The republican party as a whole hasn't given a flying f--k about this country since Dwight Eisenhower and given individual voting records, Everett Dirkson was probably the last republican who always considered the good of the country first before hanging his hat on some John Burch Society creed or market driven unrestricted capitalism.

        And at that point this place stopped being the United States of America and became the North American Corporation of Secular Constipation.

        I need to be very clear here... The Democratic Party played a role in this too... many just sat on their hands and did nothing. The most devastating of all was when Clinton signed the Commodity and Futures Trading Modernization Act into law while Phil Gramm leered over his shoulder like a wolf who just killed a rabbit. Elsewhere on this site, someone opined that the only real solution to fix this country would be to eliminate conservatives of any persuasion- either republican or Democratic- from holding any public office. I used to believe that might have been a position that was too extreme, but now I'm reconsidering mine.

  •  They're Taking Over the Country. (18+ / 0-)

    As they intended to do beginning in the 60's. Nothing they say has been about governing or a different approach to economics etc. It's purely about taking over. That's the mission of the dominionists and evangelicals, it's the mission of the Neoliberals and Neocons, it's the mission of top economic ownership, and since they largely don't covet each others' domains they're a natural coalition.

    There's no logic, no argument, no debate, it's all propaganda of one type or another intended to help them tack their way to the finish line.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 06:59:49 PM PDT

    •  Still they suffer from their typical faults (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Snarky McAngus, Dave925

      Impatience, overreach and an unwillingness to adapt.

      The first two were on display during Dubya's term - and it still gives me chills what might have become of America, had they had a little more patience and restraint.

      The third may just do them in, as is currently on display in the immigration debate...

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

      by RandomGuyFromGermany on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 02:03:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The overreach is deliberate. (7+ / 0-)

        Shoot for it all on every move; get what you can, but you'll likely get some ground even in defeat. And then try to grab everything again.

        It's not impatience: you can read their conscious strategies in print since Goldwater's crushing defeat, now 50 years ago. They've been constantly moving toward what they want since.

        And getting it. The Democratic Party's 'centrism' and 'bi-partisanship' since Reagan plays into the lunatic's hands.

        Trickle Down; Deregulation; Privatization, Free Trade [sic]: all these devices to shift power into the hands of the rich. All of which have failed the people, and failed the nation. Yet we keep playing along as if these things actually make sense.

        Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

        by Jim P on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:11:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well stated -- some place along the line (4+ / 0-)

          Democrats gave up the position that the people needed a voice and adopted the position that rich people needed more of a voice.  Poor, deprived, voiceless rich people, never get any good press, never get tax breaks, never get the welfare that poor people get.

          Well, we've given them that and much, much more and they are willing to take and take and take.

          You don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt, you hayseed. You need a curveball!

          by GoBlue08 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:37:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is that if they take it over, they (7+ / 0-)

      won't know what to do with it.

      What good does it do a man to own the whole earth, if he doesn't know how to make a fire or boil water?

  •  Free - as in "slaves to an idea". (6+ / 0-)

    It is amazing to watch in real-time, how the tea party movement morphes through all stages of becoming a totalitarian cult.

    Do they have their red booklet yet?

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

    by RandomGuyFromGermany on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 01:56:56 AM PDT

  •  Yes, the Cons are people who, lacking (5+ / 0-)

    self-awareness and self-control, seek to compensate for their deficits by controlling other people.

    It's not hypocrisy. More like a kinetoptophobe yelling "stop the world, I want to get off."

    I do think the social emphasis on achievement has caused people bereft of all practical talent but the gift of gab great distress. After all, the electronic media have made the orator and story teller and reporter and dictator and preacher almost superfluous.
    How many more times is Cruz going to be able to do his 21 hour stunt? Never. Contrast that with the speech on the Constitution he trotted out 80 times while he was in high school. How many more Rush Libaughs are goint to be employed to talk nonsense non-stop? None. The talkers are a dying profession.

    Productive enterprise used to be divided into goods and services and services were the poor relations. Then it became apparent that, especially as quality improved, the call for goods was increasingly short lived and the reputation of service rose. However, not before some traditional "services," especially those associated with managing the currency we use to account for goods and services, redefined their output as "products" or "goods" even as they divorced themselves from material entities (passbooks and checkbooks and monthly statements, etc). There's an irony there, calling figments of the imagination products, as if they were figs or onions.

    Meanwhile, the talkers who actually know what they are talking about (teachers) took a hit. Perhaps they were perceived as a threat to people who need to spout nonsense and do it incessantly. Maybe electronic advertising also put them out of work.

    Anyway, we've got freedom of speech but less and less opportunity or reason to talk. Have people been silenced as a result of everyone learning the same language?

    •  You think the talkers are dying? (0+ / 0-)

      I think otherwise.

      The truthtellers are dying.  With truth, there is only one, and in our world of mass media, there need only be one person to tell it.

      But with lies, oh think of the varieties!  How many ways can we criticize evolution, or climate change, or Obamacare!  So we don't just have Limbaugh, but Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the insanitocracy.

      According to the Supreme Court, our constitution grants us the right to lie (and you can thank the liberal justices for that).  Combine that with a cultural tendency to judge the truth by counting votes (you can thank the institution of the jury trial for that) and I think that the talkers aren't going anywhere.

      One man gathers what another man spills

      by John Chapman on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 02:40:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The funny thing about the lie and the truth is (0+ / 0-)

        that, according to Karl Popper, only the lie can be proved. So, in effect, the lie has to exist to be disproved so that, by a process of elimination, we arrive at the truth.

        Try it. Try proving that an apple is an apple. Calling it a pomme doesn't count. You can demonstrate that an apple is not a pear and vice versa. So, calling an apple a pear would be a lie and proved.

        We need the lies to arrive at the truth. However, that does not make the habitual liar good. Just as a snake bite is not good.
        What does the potential of snake bite teach? Don't touch. Keep your hands to yourself. Respect privacy. A perceptive capacity that some people, apparently, do not have.

      •  Oh, and to answer your question. No, they are (0+ / 0-)

        not dying; they are becoming useless and that's making them very afraid. How will they eat if they can't sing for their supper?

  •  absolute power corrupts absolutely (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blonde moment, sfbob, GoBlue08, MsGrin

    and the GOP is a prime example of the truth of that statement. Between the greed of there rich overloads and the complete lack of any true understanding of Christ message by the born again's, then add in the lack of knowledge by there base and you have the recipe for a totalitarian government. On the bright side it will not be a pretty sight when the base wakes up and finally realizes what has been to them by the GOP. Lets hope they wake up before it to late since once they have achieved total power they will unleash Hell on earth on the America people.

  •  Seventh: does not tolerate dissidence (5+ / 0-)

    Just look how they vote 100% against anything Obama and don't tolerate ANY of their member voting otherwise under the implicit threat of having to go primaries and lose their seat, or lose other perks.

    •  Geez, spot on -- thanks adding that critical point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      You are absolutely right -- a vote for an R is a vote for all of them, because they are a bloc.  A dim, wrong, sad and dangerous bloc.  No room at all for contrary thought.

      You don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt, you hayseed. You need a curveball!

      by GoBlue08 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:37:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  one could argue the Neocons (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Snarky McAngus, sfbob, GoBlue08, Jim P, Dave925

    if they were a communist plot to destroy america
    you couldn't come up with a better one.

    Plunging the nation into wars interminable,
    burying the government in debt
    turning the people against the government.
    creating a permanent underclass.

  •  I think we need to be addressing their ideas (3+ / 0-)

    more than their ethics.  Hideous as their "values" and their personalities are, far uglier is the track record of conservatism throughout history.  Whenever a large issue comes up (slavery,  equal suffrage, child labor, environmental protection, even the revolution that founded our country), conservatives are always (always!!) on the wrong side.  For decades they've been branding themselves as the "not liberals" and getting away with it because we've been (weakly) defending ourselves instead of holding their track record up to the light.

    I believe we need to stop talking about conservatives and actually talk about conservatism.  

    •  I agree completely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We need to make conservatism the issue -- always wrong.  I think that we spend too much time on their individuals and no time on the institution.

      You don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt, you hayseed. You need a curveball!

      by GoBlue08 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The idea of conservatism (5+ / 0-)

    is very lazy, useless people keeping themselves comfortable.

    That's what I see when I see conservatism these days.  Lazy.  Useless.

  •  The history of movement conservatism (6+ / 0-)

    ...was in tactical anxiety about the triumph of Soviet Communism and the hyped-up fear of a fifth column movement in the US that operated through labor, civil rights movements, and other "fellow travelers" (in the terminology of the Right).  At the time that Barry Goldwater was running for President, there was a popular book called None Dare Call It Treason that advocated sneaky party cell tactics, propaganda, front groups and all of the institutions of the modern GOP as a way to win for "Americanism". (John Stormer wrote prior to Malcolm Forbes reappropriating the word "capitalism" and "capitalist" triumphally at the beginning of the Reagan administration.)

    In addition, Anglophile conservatives like William Buckley longed for an ideological parliamentary system like that of Europe instead of the compromising big-tent Republican and Democratic parties of the United States.  And that is why Goldwater tried to stamp the Conservative brand on the Republican Party in 1964.

    The problem of being in power for 40 years (and there is the extent to which conservatives ideas still have a death grip on US government in both parties) is that the incumbents stack up and block new blood from entering the party.  The revolt against that has to be framed in some terms and in ideological parties, it is framed as purity to principles.  The primaries are seen as purges.

    But over 40 years of suborning the media, hijacking the courts, buying the legislatures, and gerrymandering the legislative and Congressional districts have made it difficult for young politicians to make their mark.  So the appearance of dynasties.  Or the competitition in terms of the craziness of the rhetoric.

    The problem with conservative politicians is that even after they destroy the government, they will still want to the taxpayers to pay their salaries, health care, and pensions for life.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

  •  Exellent analysis ... (3+ / 0-)

    the only conservative tactic you don't explore is "the big lie" that was so fully realized during the Bush years - not surprising since Bush's VP and mentor, Dick Cheney wrote his thesis on Leo Strauss who developed a "moral" justification for dishonesty in the pursuit of power. We see it today in the flagrant disregard of inconvenient truths and "truthiness."

    •  I think you are right -- propaganda (0+ / 0-)

      is a common factor as well.  Another commenter added lack of tolerance for dissent which is also accurate.

      The parallels are frightening and all the more so because, as you point out, they are intentional.

      Thank you for your thoughtful addition!

      You don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt, you hayseed. You need a curveball!

      by GoBlue08 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:37:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very good points yet wouldn't it be more accurate. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Dunkelberg example instead of Communist Politburos, to use the word dictatorships?  
    Difference Between Communism and Dictatorship

    And this is simply my opinion but I'm convinced that it is harmful to elevate the GOP's "conservative movement" to the level of an ideology by labeling it such.

    It's just not. It's like  Cokie's Law 2 that  Digby hightlights. Essentially - 'It doesn't matter if something is true, it's what every one (MSM) is saying'

    Thx GoBlue08

  •  Brilliant analysis! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Insightful opinion!  I have to say that I hugely enjoyed reading a new perspective, and I must agree.

    The similarities between the American neo-conservative movement and the emerging Soviet state are uncanny.  Don't get me wrong, it's not a perfect analogy (at least I hope not); but it is thought-provoking.

  •  Shooting the sheriff (0+ / 0-)

    "Nixon rode in as the new sheriff when America was in turmoil, which turmoil was fostered by reactionary violence and perfidy by the powerful. "

    The above strikes me as simplistic and partial. Nixon was elected for various reasons, not least of which was the Vietnam War (including the Tet Offensive), created and nurtured by years of Democratic administrations, which had also presided over riots in our major cities, multiple political assassinations, and passage of civil rights legislation, one of whose implementations in the form of extensive bussing raised hackles nearly everywhere. Entirely unsurprisingly, Hubert Humphrey looked a lot more like part of the problem rather than a solution.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site