COMMUNISTS AND NAZIS – THEN AND NOW

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets….  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz [sic] Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."          

                                Barack Obama, Dreams from my Father

In a recently published book, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, (2010) Yale historian Timothy Snyder takes the reader back to central Europe during the years of World War II where the police and armies of Stalin and Hitler took turns killing millions of the people who lived there. While pretending, as always, to be peace-loving liberators of the oppressed and exploited, the Communists under Stalin’s leadership were indistinguishable from the Nazis in their brutality and criminality.  For the unfortunate peoples in the central Europe death came from the west in the color of Brown; from the east it was Red.

After Stalin’s brief courtship with Hitler went badly in 1941, his good fortune was to become regarded as the lesser of two evils by the leadership of the democracies Hitler’s armies were on the way to obliterating. Stalin thus was opportunistically embraced by Churchill and FDR in the vein of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and to him were given timely and useful gifts -- Lend Lease, Studebaker trucks and eventually a Western front that enabled him to participate in, and claim credit for the defeat of his ex-comrade who had double-crossed him but with whom only a few short years before he had shared the ravaging of Poland and the Baltic states.  Stalin’s Red Army and his NKVD, instruments of so much of the murder described by Snyder in his book, then were instrumental in imposing for much of the rest of the century a state of helotry on much of central Europe once Hitler had been dispatched. Hitler’s reign of terror was of relatively brief duration – twelve years -- in comparison with that of Stalin’s which endured long beyond his personal demise in 1953. While Hitler produced no replications, many “Stalins” came into power following the end of WWII – Mao, Castro, Kim Il-sung, not to mention the likes of Nicolae Ceaușescu,, Erich Honecker and the rest of the satraps who ruled over the Soviet vassal states of the eastern block.    

Unlike the Communists who adroitly concealed their vast iniquities under the rubric of “anti-Fascism” the Nazis had always been more open and forthcoming about what they were really about. With the military and political collapse of the Third Reich and the destruction of Germany the Nazi leaders were branded and tried as war criminals. Side by side with the Americans and the British, the Soviets sat in judgment over the Germans at Nuremburg. The man who organized and prepared the Soviet participation in the International Military Tribunal that prosecuted the defendants was none other than Andrey Vyshinsky, the same man who led the prosecution of Nickolai Bukharin and other high ranking Bolsheviks in the mid-1930s Moscow “show trials”, legal farces that Stalin engineered to eliminate rivals and critics in the party. Vyshinsky’s forte was vitriol, calumny and abuse always in service to his boss, Stalin who had him on a very short leash. Here is one of his more memorable productions at the conclusion of the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial in Moscow, 1936.

Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!... Down with these abject animals! Let's put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!

This was how Stalin treated his distinguished colleagues who had helped Lenin seize power in 1917. None of these “rabid dogs” or “stinking corpses”, as Vyshinsky would have them, were guilty of any of the charges against them.  The crimes were fabricated, the defendants were tortured, and the entire proceedings were rigged. Zinoviev and Kamenev in exchange for confessions to things they had never done were promised that their lives and those of their families would be spared They were killed as were the families. Keeping promises was not in Stalin’s moral repertoire. The “vulture Trotsky” remained a dedicated Marxist until another Stalin-stooge Ramon Marcader took his life with a pick ax in Mexico City four years later.

In spite of all that the Communists have actually done – the lying, murder, and betrayal of purpose -- they have never over the years relinquished their pretense to moral rectitude and service to humanity.  In this they have had copious assistance from the legions of enablers (“fellow travelers”, as they used to called; “useful idiots” as Lenin saw them) from those bourgeois societies they loathed and had from the beginning planned to destroy.  These enablers still play the role even today.  They used to go to the Soviet Union and Mao’s China.  They now go to Venezuela and still to Cuba. 

Hitler and Stalin persist as poles of extreme ideological identification, as labels of execration, symbols and markers that are constantly used to focus unabated loathing and denunciation. “Far,” “extreme,” “rabid,” “fanatical” are the adjectives that often accompany the mention of “Left” and “Right” in current political commentary.   “Far Left” and “far Right” (remarkably similar in practice and appearance) are where we now locate the ultimate source of moral and political evil.  Communism in its Stalinist form has come to be viewed as the Left’s consummate stage of degeneracy. This has happened gradually, reluctantly and is incomplete.  Nazism, personalized by Hitler and the regime of the Third Reich, immediately upon conclusion of WWII became the symbol of Right-wing ideology at its worst, although National Socialism was in definition and practice an instantiation of socialism.

During his Presidency George W. Bush was frequently likened to Hitler by those on the Left, with comments like those of British playwright, Harold Pinter in the Guardian in 2003: “The U.S. is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany.”   President Obama to his most antipathetic detractors is a Marxist-Communist.  His Republican opponent, Allan Keyes, in the 2004 U.S. Senate race referred to him as a “hard-core academic Marxist.”  The parallelism, however, is less than perfect since nowhere can we find documentation or evidence of Bush’s admiration for Hitler, an affinity for his ideas or an association with Fascist writers or organizations. Whereas in the first of President Obama’s two autobiographies, Dreams from my Father, there is explicitly expressed his youthful infatuation – never repudiated or seemingly regretted – with Marxists writers, particularly the violence-worshipping Franz Fanon, and his revulsion with the old order.  His mentor-pastor and spiritual advisor for two decades, an avowed Marxist, was the inspiration for his second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, a title taken from one of Pastor Wright’s sermons.

“Nazi” is today not just a word reserved for historians and political philosophers to designate an extinct and odious political movement and party that flourished in one of the world’s most cultured and scientifically advanced countries in the middle decades of the last century.  Its denotation has been overwhelmed by its connotation.  “Nazi” is now a frequently resorted-to term of abuse, an entry in a specialized lexicon assembled from historically related terms like “Fascist,” “Brown Shirt,” “Gestapo” selected primarily for political vilification and nullification.  For the historically ignorant, “Nazi” comes into play as a vague image of murderous bigotry, a label of pure insult and abuse, devoid of historical or empirical content.  This lexicon is favored particularly by those on the Left to vent their frustrations and as a source from which to retrieve and frame their insults and make grotesque caricatures of their political opponents in the center and on the right. 

From the real, live, flesh-and-blood Nazis that were completely vanquished in the smoldering ruins of Berlin in1945 an ever present specter of Fascism has been conjured out of the ashes by the Left that seems to need a threatening Nazi lurking forever in the shadows as a malevolent, atavistic counterpoise to its own romantic mythology of humanism, progressivism and heroic resistance to evil.  Today’s world lacks real Nazis; yet they remain for the Left as necessary, menacing abstractions of pure evil, their permanence assured.    

OF DECLARATATIONS & DEFAMATIONS: OBAMA AND HIS ENEMIES

“Let us declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.  This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead.  For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pocket.”  (2013 State of the Union, speech)

Above is our ever loquacious President deploying some of his favorite rhetorical weapons and, has he have done with many of his speeches over these very long years, challenging the listener to decide whether he is hopelessly deluded and naïve or utterly cynical and duplicitous. 

The first sentence is the mother of all non-sequiturs – “Let us declare …etc.”  Yes, let us declare whatever makes us appear even more compassionate and virtuous … maybe the onset of the millennium, swords into plowshares, where no one “should” be overworked and exhausted, and then (to make sure it happens) propose to lower the work week to 15 hours.  This is a classic Obama trope of misdirection and megalomania. There is no logical or empirical connection between the Hope and Change declaration for the end of poverty and the proposed action, a partisan political ploy.  

One must understand that the President’s declarations, whatever the subject may be, have almost always been by design self-referential, in effect, all about Obama, The One. They are intended to display and dramatize his boundless compassion – in His America no one should have to live in poverty if we simply follow his lead.  Second, they are always, even by the forgiving standards for politicians on the hustle, grandiose and fantastical.  In 2008 his election, he said, would “heal the planet,” “slow the rise of the oceans” and “transform America and the world.” This man does not waste his valuable time or unique talents on small things. He is about, in his own words, “transformation”. Every speech was supposed to be equivalent to the Gettysburg Address, every appearance a diffusion of edification and enlightenment.

The rest of this excerpt is a typically embarrassing and sloppy descent into the real world which is terra incognita for Obama.  Yes, maybe the minimum wage “could” mean the difference between groceries and the food bank, etc. but likely not.   The minimum wage has been raised many times over the decades and now we have record levels of youth unemployment and food stamp reliance. However, if we raise it one more time, the President avers, poverty will vanish.  “For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pocket.”  Yes, but businesses across the country will be employing fewer people since the cost of labor will be raised. None of these details are important or relevant in the long term because for Obama and his admirers it is always the intentions that matter, and his are the highest and purest, worthy of declaration in yet one more speech.  The most important outcome for Mr. Obama is that we all continue to understand how much he cares about the unfortunate. The world, however, will turn, the minimum wage will no doubt be raised, and, poverty will persist and this his solemn declaration will be forgotten along with his many other rhetorical excursions into fantasy land.         

In his speeches Obama often asserts a fake unanimity as he urges “us” in this instance to join him in this inspiring exorcism of penury.  The trap is thus set.  Who can oppose the end of poverty for anyone?  Who wants anyone to be evicted or without groceries?  And so, from Obama the obvious, simple solution – raise the minimum wage. Those who might possibly object must be selfish, stupid or partisan.  There is no other explanation, and this is how he will orchestrate the conversation.  There will always be someone with a corroded character and hidden agenda standing in his way and making self-serving excuses. Obama’s framework is always one of invidious comparison.  The solutions to big problems, his solutions, the only reasonable solutions, are obvious, straight forward and simple and make life better and fairer for the many. The obstacles to the solutions are:  the few, the mean-spirited, unenlightened folks in opposition who want the many to suffer while they prosper. 

Considers this piece of an April 2011 speech:

“We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice. And if we’re asking community colleges to sacrifice, if we’re asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make a little sacrifice, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.”   

Who exactly is this “we” doing the asking?  It is Obama, himself, of course, but he is setting up yet another invidious comparison as conjures himself into a virtuous collective (“We are the Ones we’ve been waiting for…” as he announced in his 2008 campaign).  In contrast to the many, the needy and oppressed who must sacrifice in the essentials are those billionaires don’t even want to give “a little.” Obama puts great rhetorical stress on this “little” he is “asking” – how could the most reasonable and decent of individuals who have so much possibility object? It is another way of scapegoating and demonizing an easy target, another way of making himself appear to be the benevolent, selfless problem solver obstructed by a few selfish, inconsiderate reactionaries. Of course, he is not “asking,” either – more misdirection and subterfuge from the candidate who promised the most transparent administration in history.  The “sacrifice” as little as says it will be will not be voluntary; it will be imposed. 

Obama operates in a Manichean world of friends and enemies. In one of the most candidate moments of his presidency he told his followers in a Univision speech in 2010, “we’re gonna reward our friends and punish our enemies” and his rhetoric is always shaped with this goal in mind.

So, when Obama utters those simple pronouns “we” or “us” the listener needs to grab the hand, twist the decoder ring frantically, decipher the message with care and prepare for another admonition followed by more restrictions or regulations. 

After the Newtown shooting President Obama in one of his many speeches on the topic said, “We must change!”  Again, who is the “we” that has to change? Well, clearly, not him. Given that the person directly responsible for the carnage was already dead this was yet one more rhetorical juke, a move to set up and “punish” those he perceives as his political “enemies.”  The change he has in mind is to turn the screws on these miscreants long held in his cross hairs who had nothing to do with the tragic events.  This unfortunate target had already been named and identified in an unguarded moment in 2008, those “bitter clingers to their guns…”  Mr. Obama does not approve of gun ownership (except for the government paid agents who guard him and his family) and, as we have come to learn, he believes that his approval or disapproval comes with a moral authority that should bind all of us.

So as we look back over the last seven years of teleprompter sweetness and  contemplate his departure, let us with a modesty and sincerity approximating that of our President declare that this nation has had the wisest, most virtuous, most compassionate of leaders and that we are all now so convinced – let him then for a long season, be silent.

Of Guns and Government: Viva the Cold, Dead Fingers

To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, included Administrative Simplification provisions that required HHS to adopt national standards for electronic health care transactions and code sets, unique health identifiers, and security. At the same time, Congress recognized that advances in electronic technology could erode the privacy of health information. Consequently, Congress incorporated into HIPAA provisions that mandated the adoption of Federal privacy protections for individually identifiable health information.  

Got that? This is the argot of those who rule over us, and this production is direct, concise and simple compared to the prose in the War and Peace length of the recently enacted Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obama Care.

Yet, for all the apparent complexity of intentions, the essential activities of government can be reduced to three.  The first and most basic activity is to tax.  Taxation for a government is equivalent to respiration for a person. Just as a person cannot live without breathing, a government cannot exist, cannot do anything to or for its subjects without the resources that come from taxation. The second is to regulate, to manage the behavior of the subjects.  To govern by its very nature is to exert control, to make people do some things (e .g. take off their shoes and jackets in airport security lines) and abstain from doing other things (e.g. buy soft drinks that exceed a certain volume).  The third is to punish.  While most people are willing to do what they are ordered to do or not to do, not everyone is so inclined.  Those individuals must be given certain incentives to encourage them to conform. 

If the government decides, for example, to build a road it taxes its subjects to pay for the construction and maintenance, and it builds the road wherever it chooses, regardless of whose private property it may cross. To ensure some level of safety on the roads, the driving must be regulated – the government makes traffic rules that the subjects are required to follow. If they fail to do so the government will punish them.      

What then becomes very clear when these basic activities are duly noted and seriously contemplated is that at its fundamental, rock bottom core, government is an organ of coercion.  No one in the government says “please”, “thank you” or “may I?” but instead, “you owe this amount of tax…”, “report for jury duty…”, “I sentence you to…” , “you will comply with this regulation…”  None of the obligations or directives its places on its subjects are voluntary: government forcibly takes peoples’ money (taxes); its rules, commands and regulations are pervasive and are backed up with the threats of fines, prison, even death. 

Not only is government at its core coercive, it is monopolistically coercive. Only its representatives may use threats and resort to force to secure compliance with their rules, regulations and dictates.  This unique monopoly is justified by the governing elite’s (the politicians’) benevolent intentions.  Everyone, so the rationale goes, is always much better off doing what the coercers want them to do.  A quick glance back at the last century suggests otherwise – ask the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Cambodians.  Ask two-thirds of the people on the planet.

The simple, obvious fact is that while all governments are coercive in nature, the less coercive ones are better than the more coercive ones. Their politicians promise less; they have less power; they do less damage.  FDR was less lethal for his subjects than Hitler.  Nixon was gentler than Mao.  A second obvious fact is that the natural tendency of government is always in the direction of more, not less coercion. Politicians in all governments (from the worst to the best) work ceaselessly to increase their power, in a word, they aim to up the level of coercion – more taxes, more laws, more regulations.  In that regard, Obama is no different than Vladimir Putin or Raul Castro. The 2,000 page Affordable Care Act mentioned above enacted in 2010 is a stunning massive, intrusive piece of regulation and coercion that will reach deep into the lives of ordinary Americans for years to come.  A third, perhaps less obvious fact is that the politicians evade or exempt themselves from the rules they make for the rest of us.  Do President Obama, Janet Napolitano, the member of Congress strip off their jackets, shoes, belts and jewelry and submit to the gropers whenever they fly?  Will all of the complexities and constraints of Obama Care affect them?  Not ever.

Now let us speak of guns.  People hate them; they love them.  There is no topic in the United States that arouses more extreme, intense passion than the limits of gun ownership. One reason, I would argue, is that guns, both symbolically and practically, challenge and threaten the government’s jealous protection over its monopoly of coercion. Guns equalize great physical inequality. An infirmed, elderly person wielding a derringer can defend herself against a young, strong assailant.  A ninety pound woman with a Beretta can protect herself from a 300 pound raging rapist.  People with guns are in a much better position to do what the government never, ever wants them to do on their own – resist coercion!

The gun-haters and gun-lovers unite into two hostile, acrimonious camps, those who trust the coercers (who believe that if the government criminalizes gun ownership and confiscates the guns, many fewer people will be murdered), and those who are perennially suspicious of the politicians and believe that criminalizing gun ownership will make ordinary citizens more vulnerable to real criminals.    

History and common sense favor the gun lovers. First, one should never believe the promises and claims of the politicians. Vice President Biden, who leads the current gun “control” efforts is a man whose career, even by the miniature ethical standards of Washington, is remarkable for its unrelenting, flagrant dishonesty. A confessed plagiarist, a habitual liar, a serial fabricator and exaggerator, his contact with the truth is almost always accidental.  After the Newtown, CT. shooting President Obama in one of his many speeches said, “We must change!”  Who exactly is the “we”?  Being, as always, unassailably virtuous he no doubt exempts himself.  The "we" is a typical Obama subterfuge. What specifically is the “change” he wants to coerce others into making? We will all be safer he wants us to believe if the gun owners, those “bitter clingers” as he condescendingly labeled them in 2008, become former gun owners.  There is no good reason to believe him. He has a long documented history of antagonism to gun ownership and has never failed to politicize any event to his advantage.  Massacres, like the one in Newtown, for him are an “opportunity.” There is little evidence that establishes strong correlation between strict gun ownership laws and gun violence.  In fact, the contrary seems to be more the case.  Gun-strict New York City, Chicago and Washington D.C. have much higher levels of gun crime than gun-easy San Antonio and Salt Lake City.

Second, whenever government criminalizes a commodity that is easily made and that many people want, the commodity remains in easy supply. Criminality then expands because buying and selling the now-prohibited commodity are criminal enterprises.  How hard was it to get liquor after the passing of the 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Volstead Act?  No one, of course, drank during Prohibition.  How difficult has it been over the last forty years to buy marijuana? 

Third, since less coercive governments are better than more coercive ones, the citizenry should reflexively, instinctively push back on all efforts by the coercers to increase their dependency and ultimately establish their helplessness.  Anyone who believes that the government’s reach for guns will ever stop until they are all illegal is hopelessly naïve.    

Fourth, consider the hypocrisy. As President Obama splashes in the Hawaiian surf, makes his many golf rounds, whenever and wherever he goes, rest assure that hordes of security personnel bristling with guns will be near by.  He and his family will spend the rest of their days under the tax-supported protection of layers of gun-bearing, government employees.  If he has his way those "bitter clingers" he sneers at and the ordinary folks in their houses and apartments across the land will watch the thugs kick in their doors. They, however, unlike their leader will have to call and wait for the police who may or may not come to help them.  But Obama will be gratified to know that they are virtuously gun-free and thus can confront their attackers with their government-bequeathed moral superiority.

Moderate Republicans; Velvet Stalinists

Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.

                                               Oscar Wilde

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

                                               Barry Goldwater

Who could be against moderation in one’s personal habits and conduct?  People are usually better off by not doing too much or too little of life’s basics – eating, drinking, exercising, relaxing, etc.   The “mean” was a centerpiece of Aristotle’s ethics – best is a life somewhere in a midway between excess and deficiency.  “Moderation” thus in most any conversation comes with approval and commendation. Extremes are dangerous: extremists are disagreeable and obnoxious.

The word “moderation” applied to an individual’s action or habits both describes and approves of what he does.  A “moderate” drinker is approved of because he habitually hits the proper balance of enjoying the pleasures of a toxic substance with the disciplined, limited (measured) intake of it so as to avoid intoxication and damage to his health.   Pleasure, sobriety and good health are all good things and moderation in this example is what brings these all together in a piece. There is no exact amount of consumption that can describe moderate drinking – “moderation” is inevitably and usefully imprecise and somewhat relative – because circumstances and people are endlessly variable.   

In discussions of politics, however, beware of moderation!  “Moderation” when applied to politicians collapses completely into partisan approbation disguised as analysis and description.  Political pundits and commentators, for example, routinely speak of “moderate Republicans,” a locution they employ to distinguish those so designated from other Republicans – who are what?  “Extreme,” “right-wing,” “radical,” “out-of-the-mainstream.” Moderate Republicans are, in effect, good Republicans, that is, ones that the pundits and commentators approve of.

What then is a “good Republican”?  A good Republican is a Republican who resembles or talks like a Democrat.   The supposed description contained in the phrase “moderate Republican” is really nothing more or less than disguised approval.   The pundit highly approves of Democrats and thus those who insist on distinguishing themselves from Democrats merit approval only insofar as they resemble Democrats.   When the “moderate Republicans” like John McCain or Jon Huntsman compete against other Republicans they are as “moderate Republicans” objects of high praise for the mainstream commentators, but when they eventually come to joust with Democrats, then…well… they are just Republicans and as such members of an inferior, discredited political caste who must then endure the riffs of condescension, derision and contempt from the inhabitants of the fourth estate.

This ideological and partisan use of moderation favored by our mainstream political commentators and reporters is routinely pointed primarily against Republicans and is evidenced by the fact that one rarely if ever encounters the mention of “moderate Democrats.”  If so, who are they?  Who then are the Democrat “extremists” who are distinct from them and who merit the kind of disapproval showered upon Republican “extremists”?   

There are no “moderate Democrats” as distinct from other ones because all Democrats are by nature balanced, reasoned, and above all, moderate.  Thus while there may be some variation among them relative to particular policy, no Democrat will be labeled “extreme” because to be extreme is to be other than a Democrat, outside of that virtuous orbit.  This point can be made with a question:  if President Obama is a “moderate Democrat”, who in the Party represents the extremists on the Left?   
Edward Kennedy as measured on the ideological spectrum was far on the Left region of the Party but at some point in his career he achieved apotheosis and was treated by the mainstream media a pillar of political rectitude, sound reason and moderation. There is some irony in this given Senator Kennedy’s conspicuous lack of moderation in his personal life – his alcoholism, womanizing and abandonment of a young woman companion to drown in the back seat of his car while he conferred with his political handlers.

Since the Kulturkampf of the 1960s pushed American culture to the Left and with it the entire Democrat party, its leading constituents now are composed of teacher unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood actors and directors. The culture-shaping institutions including the universities, the entertainment industry and the media are now dominated by an ideology of collectivism and thus the Democrats as the party increasingly of the Left has established its politics as “the norm” and its candidates as uniquely virtuous, empathetic and rational.  If you are not a Democrat, you are “abnormal,” which is translated by the pundits into the more specific attributes of stupid, mean and greedy.   No longer do the Democrats call themselves “liberals”; they are now “progressives” and since “progress” must be good and what any normal person would desire, non-progressives must be out of touch reactionaries who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them…”

The “moderate “Republican” subterfuge by the contemporary Left is a small part of its practice of “velvet Stalinism”.  Velvet Stalinists share the same premise as their pioneering iron-fisted precursors – power is not to be shared nor critics respected or spared.  President Obama in an unguarded moment made this premise explicit during the 2010 congressional campaign in an interview with Univision when he said: “[W]e're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends ...”   Politics for Stalinists, iron-fisted and velvet, alike, is war. The object thus is to destroy the opposition because it is responsible for all the malignancies that plague society.  In those early days when Stalin was building the socialist workers paradise, the dissenters and unenthused were physically removed from political competition – shot or sent to the Gulag.

Today’s Stalinists not possessing quite the monopoly of force as the General Secretary of the CPSU, deal with their competitors by simply pronouncing them to be unfit, thus there is no obligation have to contest their criticism or ideas.  Nor should they have to since they are by definition “out of the mainstream.”  The competitors are assigned to realm of the stupid, the greedy, the mean-spirited, Fascists, Nazi’s and racists, categories that mean that the opposition should be taken seriously except as a pathological aberration.     

Moderation is wonderful, but it is meaningless in politics.