[PEN-L:4753] Re: beltway ...

["Max B. Sawicky" <maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

MScoleman@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> lefties for the better part of a century.  One thing I would like to see both
> of you address/debate is the possibility of the rise of a right wing mass
> movement along the lines of the rise of Nazism in Europe.


Although I don't follow the Right as closely as folks who make it their
daily business, a striking feature of it is resemblance to the left in
the organizational sense.  Namely, it is a coalition of single-issue
constituencies, often with little in common, around a core of extremists
who also differ among themselves.  The issues are taxes, guns, gays,
home schooling, 'survival,' the UN, environmental regulation,
race/gender/immigrants, etc.  The core includes old-time
Nazis, rock-and-roll skinheads, Klans-persons, and "Constitutionalists,"
among others.  As with the left, I think this disarray is more a source of
weakness than strength.  I don't see it going anywhere politically unless
some personality rises to unify it, and the economic times would have to
be especially hard (more so than now) for such a development.  The obvious
candidate is Pat Buchanan, who seems to have a good intellectual grasp
of fascism and is toying with the decision to make a serious effort to
organize such a movement.  He would probably be joined by his supporter
Ollie North.  I can't think of any close seconds in likelihood right now.
Robertson has already made a fool of himself with his book.


> out, the Clinton oval office has done more to thwart right wing, white,
> racist movements than left.


Though not all that much.  I was really reacting to my JD's puzzling
reference to Clinton's alleged hostility to civil liberties, which I
think is no more than a willingness to pick up on some get-tough-on
crime measures.


> this country at this time is on the right -- Perot, Waco, Oklahoma City,


I wouldn't call Perot a right-winger, although his sanity is clearly in
question.  I wouldn't fear a Perot presidency in the same way I would
fear a Buchanan.  In the former case, I would worry about awful policies
to gut entitlements and balance the budget, coupled with a generally
chaotic political atmosphere.  In the latter case, I would be preparing
phony identity papers and storing canned food.

> have, only half formed, is that a left movement in this country might become
> more cohesive as the right becomes more cohesive.  Certainly, black church


I think one usually goes with the other.  The trick is getting ourselves
more cohesive sooner than the other side does.  There is a real question
in my mind as to whether any extremist movement could threaten to take
power in the U.S., because we are unlike Europe in so many ways.


> leaders are banding together as they haven't done since the late 1950s/early
> 60s.  Even white religious leaders are coming together because the overt


I don't put much in this.  There is no special progressive content to
the alliance -- it's just the decent thing to do.  You don't have to be
a progressive to think you should help a blind person cross the street.

I think the principal danger from the right is the promotion of disintegration
of the public sector, of civil society, of community in general.  Right now
anarchism looks more dangerous than anything else.

M.S.

====================================================
Max B. Sawicky			202-775-8810 (voice)
Economic Policy Institute	202-775-0819 (fax)
1660 L Street, NW		maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx	
Suite 1200			
Washington, DC  20036