Showing posts with label NANCY MACLEAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NANCY MACLEAN. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Historian Nancy MacLean: We're seeing a right-wing plan built on "decades of disinformation" MacLean published "Democracy in Chains" four years ago — and says it's "gut-wrenching" to see it come to life

 

Historian Nancy MacLean: We're seeing a right-wing plan built on "decades of disinformation"

MacLean published "Democracy in Chains" four years ago — and says it's "gut-wrenching" to see it come to life

By CHAUNCEY DEVEGA

Senior Writer
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 9, 2021


On Friday, the House finally passed Joe Biden's infrastructure plan.
While the president's larger Build Back Better agenda remains in
doubt, this is a landmark achievement, representing the largest 

investment in America's infrastructure since the Great Society 

programs of the 1960s. Since the bill has already passed the 

Senate, Biden will sign it into law later this month.

A vast majority of Americans — including a large percentage of Republicans — support the specific policies contained in the 

infrastructure plan. (And for that matter, many or most of the 

social policies included in the Build Back Better package as well.) 


Logically, the infrastructure plan should now become part of the Democratic brand, and simultaneously an anchor around the
Republican Party's feet for decades to come.

That outcome would be almost guaranteed in a healthy democracy
that was not locked in an existential struggle against fascism.
I scarcely need to clarify that these are not normal times and
this is not a healthy democracy. 

RELATED: The Republicans have dug up Jim Crow's 

corpse — and now they've married it


The Democrats' success with the infrastructure plan came on 

the heels of their defeat in last week's Virginia gubernatorial election, where Terry McAuliffe crumbled under an attack by 

Republican Glenn Youngkin and a right-wing machine that 

deftly deployed its moral panic bogeyman of "critical race 

theory."

In Virginia and elsewhere, Republican voters and Trump
supporters appear energized and mobilized by the Big Lie,
racism and white supremacy, pandemic-related public health issues and other aspects of the "culture war." In comparison, too many Democratic voters seem unenthusiastic and listless, exhausted by the escalating assaults on democracy and uninspired by the party's leadership.

Pollsters and other political experts are now predicting that Democratic losses in Virginia and elsewhere are a signal that Republicans will likely regain control of both the Senate and House in the 2022 midterms. Such an outcome could well be a precursor to Donald Trump's attempted comeback in the 2024 presidential election.

Ultimately, what good are Joe Biden and the Democratic Party's legislative successes if the Republican-fascist movement stands on the verge of taking control of Congress and then the White House?


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Democrats will be left claiming the historic success of an infrastructure bill that would likely be gutted by a Republican majority, except for whatever provisions the fascist regime wishes to claim as its own. 

To this point, Democrats have been unable to mount an effective defense against the Republican fascists and their forces because they refuse to grapple with the enormity of the challenge. In that way, the party and too many of its liberal and progressive supporters remain trapped in short-term crisis mod, focusing on the immediate problem rather than the long-term threat and big picture.

By comparison, Republicans and "movement" conservatives have been thinking strategically, and in many respects have prepared for their impending victory for decades. Understood this way, American's democracy crisis is neither surprising nor new. The roots of our current disaster go back at least to the 1960s, with the  backlash to the civil rights movement and other struggles to expand and improve the country's social democracy.  

To discuss these issues and more, I recently spoke with Nancy MacLean, who is the William H. Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of several important books, including "Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan" and "Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace."

Her most recent book, "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America," a National Book Award nominee, was published four years ago but now appears prophetic. In this conversation, MacLean explains her view that the events of Jan. 6 and the larger ongoing coup against democracy are just one aspect of a long-term plan by right-wing libertarians and other well-funded and powerful ideologues to undermine or overthrow American democracy.

MacLean also discusses how and why these right-wing billionaire funders continue to support the treasonous and seditious behavior of Republican congresspeople who support the Big Lie and voted against democracy on Jan. 6. She warns that the goals of these right-wing libertarians are more extreme than many people imagine, and may include restricting the vote to (white) property owners to vote and fully defunding the country's already threadbare social safety net.

Toward the end of this conversation, MacLean discusses the Republican Party and white right's attempt to use "critical race theory" to mobilize angry white parents at the local level, and how that connects to Jim Crow-era battles over school desegregation and racial democracy.

How are you feeling? For some time, you have warned the American people about the anti-democracy campaign being waged by the libertarian right-wing. That's all coming together right now. 

It's dispiriting. I believe that more people are understanding what's going on in this country with the democracy crisis, but I do not think it is happening on a scale and in a timely enough way to stop what's unfolding before us. It's just gut-wrenching, to be frank. People who should know better are not behaving as they should. The Biden administration is running into exactly the same roadblocks the Obama administration did.

So the Republican Party won't compromise? What did they think was going to happen when the Republican Party was taken over by libertarian donors and a base that's been fed red meat by Fox News for 25 years?

America's political class continues to behave as though it is shocked and stunned by the Republican attempts to nullify democracy, as seen on Jan. 6 and in the ongoing coup attempt. Are they in denial? Is this willful ignorance? Are they so invested in a broken political system that they refuse to admit the obvious and respond appropriately? How do you make sense of this lack of urgency?

First, I do not believe that they are a monolith. It is important to emphasize that fact because there are people who do know better. This includes Pramila Jayapal of the Progressive Caucus, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse and others. There have been some bold and outspoken and truth-delivering voices who we should applaud. But it is a real challenge to persuade their colleagues to speak to these truths about the country's democracy crises.

I'm not denying that it's a complicated operation. If the Democrats need 60 senators to get anything substantive done and you're dealing with the likes of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, it's a challenge and it's frustrating. But I do believe that the leading Democrats could do more with the bully pulpit to help the American people understand the origins of the democracy crisis — and what is at stake for their day-to-day lives if this right-wing libertarian and larger anti-democracy cause is allowed to advance, as it has been doing for years.

What and who are the elements in this anti-democracy movement?

There is an elite element and the voters they count on to advance the goals. The elite elements are parts of the corporate libertarian Koch network. The large number of donors and institutions they fund include the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, the State Policy Network and many others.

This network also includes supposed scholars, faculty, and students at over 300 institutions at present. The corporate-libertarian cause knows that the world they want to create is unpopular. Therefore, they have to get the votes to advance their agenda by relying on the religious right.

The religious right has now been boiled down to a base consisting of white nationalist Christian evangelicals in various forms, who are anti-science for example. In my opinion, it was fairly easy to persuade them to reject climate science and to embrace the Big Lie about the 2020 election and all the other lies and untruths being pandered by the right-wing movement and its media.

We are now also seeing the religious right overlapping in significant ways with white supremacists and the larger white power movement. In this country we are in real trouble in that regard because of how these white nationalist identities are being used to promote vigilante actions.

What did you see on Jan. 6?

To my eyes, it was a fulfillment of these decades of disinformation and agitation of the worst impulses held by some Americans. For example, these very self-interested right-wing forces who oppose taking action to stop the global climate crisis are willing to leverage racism, homophobia, sexism and other antisocial behavior and values to achieve that goal.

There is plenty of evidence showing that the Koch donor network has funded and continues to back the politicians who spurred on the events of Jan. 6 and the Big Lie, and refused to certify Biden's election.

The mainstream news media are complicit in so much of this because of their "both sides" script. The mainstream news media needs to recognize that there is an imminent threat of autocracy in the United States.

Where do these talking points, lies, disinformation and propaganda come from, meaning the things that Trump insurrectionists and others in the right-wing echo chamber believe? Who is developing and weaponizing these ideas?

There are perverse and ridiculous theories or interpretations of the Constitution coming from the Federalist Society and other groups that are part of the donor-funded radical right-wing libertarian legal movement. That includes prominent right-wing attorney John Eastman, who came up with this claim that state legislatures have the capacity to overthrow a national election. People like Eastman are making the kinds of arguments and claims that fueled the rabid and crazy behavior we saw at the Capitol on Jan. 6. That's what the insurrectionists have been imbibing — and it has been their steady diet for years.

At its core, we can understand what we saw on Jan. 6 as also being a rejection of the core principle that all Americans are equally entitled to citizenship and voting, and to having a say in our government.

For the right-wing anti-democracy movement, the phrase "real Americans" is a potent rallying cry. They love to use that language about "real Americans." But what do they really mean? Who are the real Americans, to them?

For the elites at least, "real Americans" are the white, property-holding, right-wing voters who agree with their right-wing extremist libertarian ideology. We saw that language of "real Americans" from Sarah Palin and others directed against Barack Obama. Presumably, Obama was not a real American and, by comparison, Palin was. We used to talk about dog-whistle racism, but it is not even coded anymore.

Certainly, anyone who benefits from the earned income tax credit is not a "real American." According to these right-wing thinkers such people shouldn't have the right to vote. In total, what is being advocated for is really a type of economic eugenics. They really would rather have people die than get health care provided by government — and some of these right-wing elite thinkers are absolutely explicit about that. They argue that if you do not have the money to support yourself in a commercial, unregulated capitalist society, then too bad for you.  

Your suffering, and even your death, will be a lesson to others that they need to save and work harder and then they will be able to become one of the "real Americans." That reality is very hard for many people to understand. That is why so many people are in denial about it.

It has been a standing assumption by many, including myself, that the Koch network and other members of the right-wing elite extremist class wanted to operate in the shadows as a way of growing their power and influence over American society. But with Jan. 6 and the ongoing coup, it seems that those forces are now working in a much more public way. How are they balancing this? And what about the role of right-wing paramilitaries and other agitators and their relationship to the right-wing elites?

To me, that is what I find scariest about this moment. The corporate element is beginning to rely on the street thugs. This is not a new thing for the arch pro-corporate libertarian right. This happened with the Southern schools crisis after Brown v. Board of Education [the Supreme Court decision that ended school segregation], with libertarians such as Milton Friedman and others of that era. They were perfectly happy, if not eager, to harness the white supremacist response to Brown v. Board of Education in order to advance their goal of school privatization.

Koch political donors have funded the Jan. 6 politicians, and shown no sign of backing down. They have also funded the organizations that are promoting this "critical race theory" hysteria, which is directed at inciting panic among white parents as a strategy to mobilize them for the 2022 midterm elections. The ultimate goal is to undermine public education. Koch-funded organizations are also encouraging the current attacks on school boards, both over masks and vaccines and the alleged teaching of critical race theory.

You are a historian who has written extensively about democracy, Jim and Jane Crow, the civil rights and Black freedom movements, and racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. How do you make sense of these school board meetings where white parents show up en masse to oppose "critical race theory," and sometimes threaten violence and mayhem? How are you connecting the past to the present?

These are people who have been whipped up into a frenzy by a steady diet of disinformation orchestrated by individuals and organization who are working strategically to make them feel like they are under attack. Part of this is making them feel like they are embattled, and their children are being turned against them. This all triggers some of the most potent emotional buttons that one can push. This is what the right-wing is doing, and it's all based on a willful lie.

Critical race theory is not taught in K-12 public schools. It's an elective at some law schools, but what they're doing — if you look at the actual text of the laws in places like Texas, what they're claiming falls under the rubric of "critical race theory" includes anything that mentions anti-racism, equity, diversity and inclusion. Basically, they're saying you cannot in any way address past or present racism in the schools and continue to teach and hold your job and not be subject to criminal prosecution.

The images I see of these protests very much remind me of what we saw by whites in the South and elsewhere against school desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. But at present, I would put more of the emphasis on the strategic right-wing actors behind this activity, who are funding the operations that mobilize people to these school board meetings, fill them with disinformation and ultimately seek to turn them into vigilantes.




Charles and David Koch (aka the Koch Brothers) and the January 6, 2021 Riot on the US Capitol (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)
Charles and David Koch (aka the Koch Brothers) and the January 6, 2021 Riot on the US Capitol (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

https://www.salon.com/2021/11/09/historian-nancy-maclean-were-seeing-a-right-wing-plan-built-on-decades-of-disinformation/



Sunday, September 3, 2023

Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America

THERE'S MORE..

I'm sure you read the RSN article -- 

the Kochs oppose: 
public education, libraries, Cape Wind 
[they funded the Cape Alliance], they oppose 
SOLAR, have produced propaganda against 
electric cars.... 

they funded Republicans to take over Congress, 
but they forgot to check for brains when they 
support Louie Gohmert tied with Steve King 
as dumbest congressmen and there are a 
bunch of others.

they're members of Mar-A-Lago and surely 
have the dim wits ear. 

They funded the Tea Party. 


They funded the Bundy rabble because they 
want PUBLIC LAND CHEAP to drill or frack. 

Let's also remember that according to the PARADISE 
PAPERS, available on line, the KOCHS, THE MERCERS, SHELDON 
ADELSON and other wealthy ilk park their $$$ overseas to avoid 

supporting government on any level.  




Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America


This is worth re-visiting!





What Is the Far Right’s Endgame? A Society That Suppresses the Majority.

By 

NANCY MACLEAN, AUTHOR OF AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MCGILL BUCHANAN, EXPLAINS HOW THIS LITTLE-KNOWN LIBERTARIAN’S WORK IS INFLUENCING MODERN-DAY POLITICS.



 


Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Photos by MBisanz/Wikimedia, 

When the Supreme Court decided, in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education, that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Tennessee-born economist James McGill Buchanan was horrified. Over the course of the next few decades, the libertarian thinker found comfortable homes at a series of research universities and spent his time articulating a new grand vision of American society, a country in which government would be close to nonexistent, and would have no obligation to provide education—or health care, or old-age support, or food, or housing—to anyone.

This radical vision has become the playbook for a network of people looking to override democracy in order to shift more money to the wealthiest few, historian and professor at Duke University Nancy MacLean argues in her new book, an intellectual biography of James Buchanan called Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.* Buchanan’s life story, she writes, is “the true origin story of today’s well-heeled radical right.”
I spoke with MacLean about Buchanan’s intellectual evolution and its legacy today. We discussed whether it’s helpful or counterproductive to call the network of organizations funded by Charles Koch a “conspiracy,” the line of influence between Buchanan and what’s going on in MacLean’s home state of North Carolina, and that time Buchanan helped Chile’s dictator craft a profoundly undemocratic constitution. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
So why is James Buchanan so unknown? He had a Nobel Prize; how did he manage to fly under the radar?
He had a very different personality from somebody like Milton Friedman. I think of them as kind of a yin and yang. Friedman was very sunny, and Buchanan was kind of a darker figure. Friedman was always very anxious to be in the limelight, and Buchanan was not like that at all. He was very interested in making an impact over the long term and training other people, and he seemed to be content to talk to powerful people more than to talk to public audiences. His books were really written for other scholars, not so much the general public.
Can you put him in relationship with other people, besides Friedman, who might be more familiar to us today?
People might be familiar with the Mont Pelerin Society, the international invitation-only group that began in 1947 launched by Friedrich Hayek. That society included Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Buchanan, ultimately Charles Koch (which I think not many people know!), and many others.
Friedman and Hayek put much more emphasis on making the case for free markets, whereas Buchanan’s distinctive mission was to make a case against government. … His basic idea is that people had been wrong to think of political actors as concerned with the common good or the public interest, when in fact, according to Buchanan’s way of looking at things, everyone should be understood as a self-interested actor seeking their own advantage. He said we should think of politicians, elected officials, as seeking their own self-interest in re-election. And that’s why they’ll make multiple costly promises to multiple constituencies, because they won’t have to pay for it. And he would say agency officials—say, an official at the EPA—would just keep trying to expand the agency, because that would expand their power and resources.
Now there were other people who actually tested that empirically and found out that it didn’t hold, so it’s really a caricature of the political process, but it’s a caricature that’s become very, very widespread right now.
You mentioned a few times in the book that Buchanan didn’t really do empirical research. So what was he writing from?
He was also trained in game theory at the Rand Corporation, so he uses a lot of that. But basically he writes more like a social philosopher, someone studying the social contract.
Did his ideas change over time?
The core ideas kind of stayed the same. What did change over time was his own outlook. It became much darker over the years. His first big book in his field, which is called public choice economics, was titled The Calculus of Consent, and it came out in 1962 and was co-authored with Gordon Tullock. It was the work for which Buchanan was most recognized in his Nobel citation. In that work, he seemed to believe that somehow people of good will could come to something close to unanimity on the basic rules of how to govern our society, on things like taxation and government spending and so forth.
And by the mid-1970s he concluded that that was impossible, and that there was no way that poor people would ever agree … there was no way that people who were not wealthy, who were not large property owners, would agree to the kind of rules he was proposing. So that was a very dark work. It was called The Limits of Liberty. He actually said in that work that the only hope might be despotism.
And he went from writing that to advising the Pinochet junta in Chile on how to craft their constitution. This document was later called a “constitution of locks and bolts,” [and was designed] to make it so that the majority couldn’t make its will felt in the political system, unless it was a huge supermajority.
So yeah, it’s pretty dark.
Tell me more about the relationship between Koch and Buchanan.
I think too many people on the left have really underestimated Koch’s intelligence and his drive, and also misunderstood his motives. There’s been brilliant work by journalists, really good digging on the money trail and the Koch operations, but much of that writing seems to assume that he is doing this just because it’s going to lower his tax bill or because he wants to evade regulations, personally. I think that really misgauges the man. He is deeply ideological and has been reading almost fanatically for a very long time. I see him as someone who’s quite messianic. He’s compared himself to Martin Luther and his effort being like the Protestant Reformation. When he invested in Buchanan’s center at George Mason University, he said he wanted to “unleash the kind of force that propelled Columbus.”
This is not someone who’s just trying to lower his tax bill. He wants to bring in a totally new vision of society and government, that’s different from anything that exists anywhere in the world or has existed because he is so certain that he is right. I think it’s more chilling because it doesn’t correspond to the ideas we have about politics.
Right, like he’s not trying to get a particular person elected. You mention several times Buchanan was very against that idea, that the point was to get a particular person elected. The point, for him, was to change the whole system.
Right. You asked how the two men connected. I only have the documentary trail that I found. But from what I found, I believe that they first came in contact or first began to work together about 1969 or 1970, and that was in the context of the campus upheaval against the war in Vietnam, and for black studies, and so forth. Buchanan wrote a book about the campus unrest that applied his particular school of thought to it. Koch had an operation called the Center for Independent Education, and that center took Buchanan’s book and turned it into a kind of pamphlet that could be circulated more broadly.
In 1970, Koch joined the Mont Pelerin Society. Once he got in, he began to advertise his many different organizations and efforts and try to recruit and get people to events and so forth, through Mont Pelerin. Buchanan helped with the founding of the Cato Institute and with various other intellectual enterprises that were close to Charles Koch’s heart, like this thing called the Institute for Humane Studies.
And then Koch funded Buchanan’s center, as well as other projects, at George Mason University. One of Buchanan’s ideas that Koch liked was the concept of making a flurry of changes all at once so that people have a hard time opposing them.
Yes, and in the same year that Koch invested all this money in George Mason, [economist] Tyler Cowen got a commission by the Institute for Humane Studies to produce this review of places where economic liberty has made big advances. Cowen advocates what he calls a “Big Bang.”
Interestingly it’s that same phrase that gets used by Civitas, the Koch-affiliated organization in North Carolina, after they take over the state legislature here in 2011. I actually have to give the North Carolina Republican-led General Assembly some credit for this book because I was struggling through Buchanan’s ideas, trying to understand the implications, because he did write in a somewhat abstract manner. And then the General Assembly came in in North Carolina and just made it all so clear. I saw the practical measures being taken and was like, “Oh, this is what he’s talking about! That’s what this is!” I should have put them in the acknowledgements.
I’d like to talk more about the way racism works in Buchanan’s intellectual project. You write in the conclusion to the book that this school of thought advocates “enlisting white supremacy to ensure capital supremacy.” Is it possible to disentangle those two?
So this is a challenge for the left because some of our categories, I think, are not very supple, and are also driven by the political world in which we operate. So for example, as we try to think about what’s going on with these voter suppression measures, the only thing that’s actionable is racial discrimination. Right? And so people think of voter suppression efforts as being motivated by racism. These are these good old boys who hate black people and that’s why they’re doing this.
I think actually what’s going on is that these people are extremely shrewd and calculating, and they understand that African Americans, because of their historical experience and their political savvy, understand politics and government better, in a lot of ways, than a lot of white Americans. And they are a threat to this project because they will not vote for it. So they want to keep them from the polls.
Similarly, young people are leaning left now, and they don’t accept a lot of these core ideas that come from this project, so this project has been very determined to keep young people from the polls. Frankly, if they could keep women away, they would, too. Because they understand that women suffrage opened the way to greater government involvement in the economy, and greater social provision and regulation.
We make a mistake when we think these are just reactionary prejudices, and we need to see them as shrewd calculations to keep people who would oppose this vision away from the polls.
So it’s about power, money.
Not just money. I think it’s also much more about this psychology of threatened domination. People who believe it will harm their liberty for other people to have full citizenship and be able to work together to govern society. And that somehow that goes much deeper than money to me. It’s hard to find the right words for it, but it’s a whole way of being in the world and seeing others. Assuming one’s right to dominate.
Your book calls Buchanan’s ideas a “stealth plan.” How can we, on the left, avoid falling into the trap of conspiracy-theory thinking while trying to understand this movement?
One of the challenges is that our language is not up to the threat that we’re facing. As a scholar, I understand the problem of conspiracy theories. I don’t want to be seen as promoting a conspiracy theory. Not least because this is not a conspiracy, by definition. A conspiracy involves illegality, and the people who are funding, and supporting and promoting this operation have extremely good lawyers and I think they actually do believe in the rule of law, and they are being, with the possible exemption of nonprofit tax law, scrupulously legal in what they are doing.
So conspiracy is not a good word. But on the other hand, this is a vast and interconnected and not honest operation. They say these anodyne things about liberty—like the title of one book is Don’t Hurt People And Don’t Take Their Stuff! And that’s not what this is about. The reality is that they are gerrymandering with a vengeance, to a degree we’ve never seen before in our history; they’re practicing voter suppression in a way we’ve not seen since Reconstruction; they are smashing up labor unions under fake pretenses, not telling people that they actually do want to destroy workers’ ability to organize collectively ... I could go on and on.
They’re doing a lot of things for strategic reasons and not being honest with the public about it. That suggests to me that we need a new vocabulary for grasping what we’re dealing with here. I guardedly used the term “fifth column” in the book, and you know, there’s problems with that term too, but at least it gets at the fact that these wealthy donors that Charles Koch has convened are deeply hostile to the model of government that has prevailed in the United States and in many other countries for a century.
While I think we need all the great investigative work that’s being done to try to show us how these organizations that are being presented to the public as separate are actually coordinating together, I don’t think that just laying that out is enough. I think that what we need to convey to people is that this is a messianic cause, with a vision of the good society and government that I think most of us would find terrifying, for the practical implications and impact that it will have on our lives.
We are at a crucial moment in our history, and we will not get another chance, by this cause’s own telling. They say again and again that this is going to be permanent, and they’re very close to victory. So I think we need to be really clear-eyed about understanding this and reaching out to one another without panic.
The most important thing I want readers to take from this book is an understanding that the Koch network and all of these people are doing what they’re doing because they understand that their ideas make them a permanent minority. They cannot win if they are honest about what they’re doing. That’s why they’re doing things in the deceitful and frightening ways that they are.
And that, I think, is a sign of great power for the majority of people, who I think are fundamentally decent, and agree on much more than we’re led to believe.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2017/06/james_mcgill_buchanan_s_terrifying_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html





Tuesday, March 30, 2021

FASCISM

 

Here is the stuff I share a lot. Someone it you know like MacLean.
----
---------------
The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler
---------------
Symptomatic Redness -Philip Mirowski - YouTube
---------------
Nancy MacLean - 4 April 2018 Lecture - OSU MediaSpace
=================================
The landslide 1984 presidential election defeat spurred centrist Democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.[8]
--------------
Who Funded the Current Conservative Democrat National Committee
--------------
Soul And Steel
--------------
Koch's Funding the Centrist Democrats
=========================
The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler
ARCHIVE.SCHILLERINSTITUTE.COM
The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler



Monday, February 8, 2021

FASCISM: Nancy MacLean: DEMOCRACY IN CHAINS; The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler



Nancy MacLean 4 APRIL 2018 LECTURE


The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek:
Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler

by Jeffrey Steinberg

September 1995

On September 3, 1995, EIR editor Jeffrey Steinberg addressed the Schiller Institute/ICLC Labor Day Conference in Tyson's Corner, Va. A transcript of his speech follows. Subheads have been added.

In the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review, Representative Dick Armey, perhaps the leading candidate for the honorary title of the ``Robespierre of the 1990s Conservative Revolution in America,'' delivered a glowing tribute to his intellectual mentor, Dr. Friedrich von Hayek, on the 50th anniversary of the publication of the professor's most well-known work, The Road to Serfdom. With blood dripping from his Jacobin lips, Armey proclaimed:
``Liberation is at hand.... A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s--from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer--the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning.... But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture--indeed, the entire human outlook--will change.... Once this shift takes place--by 1996, I predict--we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including.... radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.''
Phil Gramm, Milton Friedman, and Malcolm Forbes, Jr. all joined Armey in the pages of the summer 1994 Policy Review to praise von Hayek as the man who snatched the Conservative Revolution from the jaws of defeat, following World War II.
Champions of the American System, left to right: Abraham Lincoln, Henry Carey, Friedrich List, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Conservative Revolutionaries against the American System, left to right: Phil Gramm, Wendy Gramm, Alvin Toffler, Newt Gingrich

Also, during the summer of 1994, another, more secretive commemorative event for The Road to Serfdom took place in Cannes, France. This was the annual gathering of the Mont Pelerin Society, the institution founded by von Hayek in 1947 to advance the Conservative Revolution by launching the radical insurgency that has now overrun the corridors of power in Washington and other capitals around the globe. The keynote speech at the Cannes event was delivered by Alain Madelin, a leading translator of von Hayek's works into French, and the man who President Chirac just fired as France's Economics and Finance Minister--much to the chagrin of London.

left to right: Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek

Writing The Road to Serfdom in London in 1944, while teaching at the British Fabian Society's London School of Economics, von Hayek was certainly in no position to pen an apology for Adolph Hitler and National Socialism. Instead, he took a sophisticated detour to arrive at the same end result. Von Hayek denounced National Socialism as a classic expression of statist, totalitarian ideology, and then argued that all forms of dirigist government involvement in the economy strangle freedom, crush the free market, and lead inevitably to Hitlerian totalitarianism.

Von Hayek slandered Friedrich List, Germany's great ``American System'' economist, and the Weimar-era German political figure, Walter Rathenau, as part of the same ``socialist'' camp as Hitler and Lenin. Von Hayek let his own Anglophiliac sentiments all hang out, as he pilloried List as the principal author of the ``German thesis'' that ``free trade was a policy dictated solely by, and appropriate only to, the special interests of England in the nineteenth century.''

He slandered Walter Rathenau, the German foreign minister whose assassination in 1923 helped break the resistance to the draconian conditionalities that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany, and also proved to be a key step toward the Nazi Party's rise to power:

``Ideas very similar to these [anti-individualist views] were current in the offices of the German raw-material dictator, Walter Rathenau, who, although he would have shuddered had he realized the consequences of his totalitarian economics, yet deserves a considerable place in any fuller history of the growth of Nazi ideas.''
Talk about Nazi ideas! The radical alternatives that von Hayek posed--strict monetarism, near-total deregulation, and Pan-European federalism--were all expressions of the same feudalist outlook that produced Hitler's National Socialism and the thousands of other varieties of Conservative Revolutionism after World War I.

``We shall not rebuild civilization on the large scale,'' he wrote in The Road to Serfdom.

``It is no accident that on the whole there was more beauty and decency to be found in the life of the small peoples, and that among the large ones there was more happiness and content in proportion as they had avoided the deadly blight of centralization.''
Prince Philip Mountbatten, head of the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), who advocates the genocidal elimination of 80 percent of the world's population, could not have been more explicit.

The Austrian School

Friedrich von Hayek was born in Vienna in 1899. After obtaining a doctorate in political science from the University of Vienna and spending the early 1920s in New York City, von Hayek returned to his birthplace to participate in a private seminar series given by the Austrian School ideologue Ludwig von Mises.

The Austrian School had been founded by Carl Menger (1840-1921), a retainer of the Hapsburg and Wittelsbach royal houses of Austria and Bavaria, who was a fanatical opponent of Prussia's industrialization policies, which were modelled on the American System of Political Economy. Menger was the first of the Austrian free market economists to equate these American System ideas with state socialism, lumping Friedrich List together with Henri St. Simon, G.W. Hegel, and Karl Marx.

Menger trained a generation of Austrian School economists, including Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek. Before his brief New York City venture, von Hayek attended the Boehm-Bawerk seminars at Vienna--along with future Bolshevik leader Nickolai Bukharin. This convergence of radical free market and Bolshevik personalities under the Vienna School tutelage was not as strange as it might seem on first reflection. Boehm's insistence on the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism due to ``over-production'' caused by the reinvestment of profit into new infrastructure, research and development, and other capital improvements through the mechanism of credit, was stolen directly from Karl Marx. And Boehm fully subscribed to the superiority of the pre-capitalist feudal guild society over the modern industrial state, a theme Bukharin would elaborate in his own 1914 work, The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class.

Attack on the Renaissance

Another seminal figure in the formation of the Austrian School was the nineteenth century ``individualist philosopher'' Jacob Burckhardt, who would provide the inspiration for the pre-Nazi philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and his overtly Nazi successor, Martin Heidegger.

Burckhardt attacked the fifteenth century Golden Renaissance as one of the worst events in history. For Burckhardt, the pre-Renaissance feudal alliance between the oligarchy and the Church represented the high point of civilization. It was a theme that von Hayek would take up more than half a century later in The Road to Serfdom, and in another critical work, The Counter-Revolution of Science, which he published in 1952.

In that 1952 book, von Hayek, reflecting the strong influence of Burckhardt, railed against the two great achievements of the Council of Florence and the Golden Renaissance: the creation of the modern nation-state governed by principles of natural law, and the development of modern science. Von Hayek rejected the idea that the individual was capable of creative scientific discovery, describing it as a fraudulent construct, demonstrating the ``collectivist prejudices'' which he claimed were inherent in all science.

Von Hayek devoted an entire chapter of The Counter-Revolution of Science to an attack against France's L'Ecole Polytechnique, and particularly against its two greatest figures, Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot. What he specifically detested about the L'Ecole Polytechnique--which he ridiculed as the ``new temple of science'' and the ``source of the scientistic hubris''--was, in his own words, the L'Ecole's notion that there were ``no limits to the power of the human mind and to the extent to which man could hope to harness and control all the forces which had so far threatened and intimidated him.'' This, he denounced as ``a metaphysical fiction.''

Von Hayek didn't stop there. He then argued that the L'Ecole Polytechnique was the source of all subsequent socialist ideas, from Henri Saint-Simon, to Auguste Comte, to Karl Marx. He then went one step further. He lumped together as leading Saint-Simonists, the great American System political economists Henry Carey and Friedrich List!

Von Hayek totally rejected the principle that man was created in the image of God. In fact, he traced his own philosophical roots to the early eighteenth century Satanist, Bernard Mandeville. In a lecture he delivered at the British Academy on March 23, 1966, von Hayek lauded Mandeville as a ``master mind,'' as the inventor of modern psychology, and as the true intellectual forbearer of David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Carl Savigny and Charles Darwin.

Von Hayek argued in his Mandeville lecture that Mandeville's poem, ``The Fable of the Bees,'' was perhaps the greatest philosophical treatise ever composed. He credited Mandeville with inspiring Adam Smith's argument for the unbridled free market.

Organizing the Conservative Revolution

After attending the Von Mises seminars in the mid-1920s, von Hayek became the first director of the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research. Wesley Clair Mitchell during the same period founded a parallel institution in the United States--the National Bureau of Economic Research. Mitchell would go on to train Milton Friedman.

In 1931, von Hayek accepted an invitation to visit London to deliver a series of lectures at the London School of Economics. During this period, he became formally affiliated with the British Fabian Society. He eventually accepted a full-time teaching chair at LSE. And in 1939, he initiated an organization that would evolve into the Mont Pelerin Society. The earlier group, the Society for the Renovation of Liberalism, included Frank Knight and Henry Simons, both of whom would train Friedman at the University of Chicago; the American Fabian socialist Walter Lippman; Viennese Aristotelian Society leader Karl Popper; fellow Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises; and Sir John Clapham, a senior official of the Bank of England who from 1940-46 was the president of the British Royal Society.

It was this group, with the exception of Knight, who died, that gathered--at von Hayek's initiative--at Mont Pelerin, Switzerland in April 1947 to form the Mont Pelerin Society. Among the other founders of Mont Pelerin were Otto von Hapsburg, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne; and Max von Thurn und Taxis, the Regensberg, Bavaria-based head of the 400-year-old Venetian Thurn und Taxis family. The explicit purpose of the society was to revive and spread the Conservative Revolutionary ideas spelled out in von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

The sister organization to Mont Pelerin from the very outset was the Pan European Union. Leading Mont Pelerin figures, including von Hapsburg and Walter Lippman, were pivotal figures in the Pan Europe movement. The concept of a Pan-European federation was a cornerstone of von Hayek's scheme, which demanded the replacement of the nation-state with a ``benign'' feudalist system.

Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-Europa Union, was himself the offspring of an 800-year-old oligarchical family. The Kalergi branch had ruled the island of Crete and forged the thirteenth century treaty that brought Crete under Venetian control. The Kalergi family eventually migrated to England as part of the ``Venetian Party'' takeover of the British isles. However, as late as the turn of the 20th century, the Kalergi's Venetian salon provided refuge to such degenerate figures as the composer Richard Wagner.

In 1923, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi launched the Pan-Europa Union, an organization that won the immediate support of the very people who would install Hitler in power. The first person to join the PEU was Hjalmar Schacht, later Hitler's finance minister and the actual author of Hitler's slave labor programs. Other Nazi and fascist luminaries, including Walter Funk, Schacht's handpicked successor as finance minister, Prof. Karl Haushofer, the head of the Geopolitical Institute in Munich and a leading ideologue of the Nazi Party, and Benito Mussolini, were supporters or members of the PEU.

In 1943, Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement to set the stage for a postwar revival of his vision of a feudal Europe, regardless of the outcome of the war. Even at this late date, Coudenhove-Kalergi noted with pride that ``Haushofer, Schacht, and Funk did and probably still do everything to convince Hitler of the necessity of creating some kind of European federation under German hegemony.'' At the same time, Pan-Europa enjoyed the active backing of Winston Churchill; Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler--the leading patron of the Comintern's Frankfurt School; Archduke Otto von Hapsburg; and Walter Lippman. The latter two, were also founders of von Hayek's Society for the Preservation of Liberalism and the Mont Pelerin Society.

The fact that Winston Churchill was an advocate of Pan-Europa would prove to be particularly significant. Following the defeat of Hitler, and the further collapse of the Hapsburgs' power, Churchill became the leading postwar patron of the Conservative Revolution. Today, the entire Mont Pelerin apparatus is an asset of the House of Windsor-led Club of the Isles.

The Mont Pelerin Society

The Mont Pelerin Society, from the outset, was to be a clandestine agency committed to implementing the ``Hayekian'' Conservative Revolution.

One of the key figures in this effort was Antony Fisher. Born in London in 1915, educated at Eton and Cambridge, Fisher was elected to the Mont Pelerin Society in 1954. The following year, he founded the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, as the first of dozens of front groups for Mont Pelerin that he would help launch. Other IEA founders included von Hayek, who at this point was at the University of Chicago; Ralph Harris, a leader of the British Eugenics Society which had earlier helped draft Hitler's race laws; Keith Joseph and Allan Walters.

When Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1979, the Mont Pelerin apparatus moved right into 10 Downing Street. In recognition of the Mont Pelerin Society's loyal service to the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II appointed Ralph Harris a peer for life, as Lord Harris of High Cross, and knighted Antony Fisher and Allan Walters. Walters was given an office at 10 Downing Street as Thatcher's resident economic advisor.

By this time, Fisher had already furthered the Mont Pelerin subversion by establishing the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, Canada in 1974, the Manhattan Institute in New York City in 1977, and the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research in San Francisco in 1978. In 1973, Mont Pelerin had also been instrumental in launching the Coors family think tank, the Heritage Foundation, in Washington, D.C. Following the Thatcher victory, Mont Pelerin launched an ambitious overhaul of Heritage, importing a half dozen British Mont Pelerinites in anticipation of the 1980 Presidential run by Ronald Reagan.

Launching a New Fascist International

Following the Thatcher election in Britain, Fisher also contacted von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and other leading Mont Pelerin figures and spelled out an ambitious expansion effort; in effect, the launching of a new fascist (ie. Conservative Revolution) international.

On New Years Day 1980, von Hayek wrote back to Fisher:

``I entirely agree with you that the time has come when it has become desirable and almost a duty to extend the network of institutes of the kind of the London Institute of Economic Affairs. Though it took some time for its influence to become noticeable, it has by now far exceeded my most optimistic hopes.... What I argued thirty years ago, that we can beat the Socialist trend only if we can persuade the intellectuals, the makers of opinion, seems to me more than amply confirmed. Whether we can still win the race against the expanding Socialist tide depends on whether we can spread the insights, which prove much more acceptable to the young if rightly expounded than I had hoped, fast and wide enough... The future of civilization may really depend on whether we can catch the ear of a large enough part of the upcoming generation of intellectuals all over the world fast enough. And I am more convinced than ever that the method practiced by the IEA is the only one which promises any real results.... This ought to be used to create similar institutes all over the world and you have now acquired the special skill of doing it. It would be money well spent if large sums could be made available for such a concerted effort.''
On Feb. 20, 1980, Margaret Thatcher added her endorsement to the project in a letter to Fisher; and May 8, Milton Friedman threw his support behind the international effort: ``Any extension of institutes of this kind around the world is certainly something ardently to be desired.''

To carry out this global effort, Fisher launched the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 1981. Originally based in San Francisco, Atlas is now headquartered on the campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia near Washington, D.C. In a strategy paper written in February 1985, Fisher wrote of the need to transform the ``extremist'' anti-government, radical free market policies of the von Hayek Mont Pelerin Society apparatus into the ``new orthodoxy'' through the launching of hundreds of small think tanks on every continent. ``To inform the public, it is necessary to avoid any suggestion of vested interest, or intent to indoctrinate.... Furthermore, increasing numbers of academic experts feel free to criticize government when their research is not sponsored by government.''


Newt Gingrich with his cronies from the 1970s.

The lesson in all of this? Don't be fooled by cheap Madison Avenue propaganda. There is nothing ``American'' about Newt Gingrich's ``new American civilization,'' and there is no truth in Dick Armey's ``true Hayekian agenda.'' And, as this morning's panel amply demonstrated, there is no ``free market.'' Remove sovereign nation-states from a role in economic development and all you have is the oligarchy's cartels. The so-called Gingrich Revolution is just the latest effort by the House of Windsor's agents and useful fools to repackage the same Conservative Revolution that has brought death and destruction to civilization throughout much of the past century.

Related pages:



YOU DID THIS. We’re #3 on Audible!

                                                                                  LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR ...