The Constitutional Alamo

The American liberal movement, aided by willing accomplices in the State-run media, has managed to paint conservatives as “fascists” and “Nazis.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

by Michael Naragon

On June 11, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote a piece on the dangers of right-wing extremism.  While conservatives balked at the Department of Homeland Security’s recent assessment of the pro-life movement, Ron Paul supporters, and generally all those who opposed the current administration, Krugman claims that the government’s fears seem to have been well founded.

“With the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic,” Krugman wrote, “closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.”  Conveniently, he left out the murder of an Army recruiter in Arkansas by a Muslim convert, but that would have weakened his attempt to distort the principles of conservatism.

Shepard Smith of FOXNews caused a stir this week when he equated those who disagree with the Marxist-socialist policies of Barack Obama with those who would commit murder.  “If you’re one who believes abortion is murder,” Smith said during an interview, “at what point do you go out and kill someone who’s performing abortion.  Well, I think we just learned from the killer of Dr. Tiller.  If you are one who believes these sorts of things about the president of the United States…”

Presumably, Smith believes that conservatives who disagree with the president would take the opportunity to murder him if they could.  Smith does not discuss the millions of Americans who oppose abortion and have not murdered a single abortion doctor, nor does he mention that the last successful assassin of a U.S. president was a socialist sympathizer.

The reason these two incidents of media bias against conservatism are mentioned is that the liberal establishment has worked since the 1960s to paint conservatives as “fascists” or “Nazis.”  The Holocaust museum shooter?  A self-described neo-Nazi, so he, of course, must be described as a “right-wing extremist.”

Gore Vidal, in a famous televised debate during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, continued to call William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi,” a comment which prompted Buckley to make what would now be called a hate threat against Vidal.

Why do liberals insist that the eventuality of conservatism is Nazism or fascism?  At best, it is a misunderstanding of history.  At worst, it is an attempt to draw attention away from the logical ends of liberalism in its modern form.

The notions of “right” and “left” began during the assemblage of the Estates-General prior to the French Revolution.  Those on the right of the king were the royalists, those who wished France to continue the status quo.  Those on the left, such as Maximilian Robespierre, wished radical changes in French government and society.  This idea has some relevance today: conservatives are usually more interested in tradition and resist change, while liberals, such as Obama, push change for change’s sake, regardless of the outcome.

The traditionalist vs. radical view is an oversimplification in 2009, however.  If you look at the eventual ends of both sides of the issue, the ideological picture becomes much more clear.  Conservatives push for the ideas of smaller government.  Libertarians, using this model, would be farther on the right, advocating as little government interference in their lives as possible.

Taking these ideas to their extreme, the ultimate end of conservatism, or, to use the DHS terminology, right-wing extremism, would be anarchy.  No government interference.  Logically, a movement that wants little government would, in its extreme, want none.

On the left, liberals advocate the continued growth of government.  Those who doubt this need only review the federal government’s actions of the past year.  Banks, automakers, and, soon, the health care industry will be directly influenced by Washington.  Liberals in Congress are already advocating more control–over companies through environmental regulations, over individuals through a myriad of taxes–thereby expanding the influence of the federal government.

What is the ultimate end of growing control?  There have been several forms of government oppression throughout history: absolute monarchy, Communism, fascism, Nazism, and Islamofascism (such as the Taliban), to name some of the more infamous examples.

So an accurate view of the modern positions of Right and Left would place anarchy at the extreme right, totalitarianism at the extreme left.  In the years following the American Revolution, the Founders of this nation desired to create a system of government that was a perfect balance between these two extremes.  Their desire was to create a federalist republic that would protect the rights of its citizens without getting in the way.  The result was a government that restricted itself through a system of checks and balances, and the American experiment granted nearly unprecedented freedom and representation to the people of the United States.

In modern politicospeak, the idea of “moderate” can represent many things.  At times, it is used to represent those forward-thinking Americans who don’t submit to dogma of a Party, instead thinking for themselves.  At times, it is used to represent those who are undecided between two sides of an issue–the lukewarm citizen, neither hot nor cold.

Using the correct ideological model, however, the Constitution is moderate.  That document is the perfect balance between tyranny and anarchy, protecting its citizenry while limiting the influence of government.

In this way, Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, was a right-wing extremist, attacking the government in general.  James Von Brunn, the neo-Nazi, was not attacking the government.  He was anti-Semitic, but not a right-wing extremist.  A nut, not a conservative.

Using this model, Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin would be left-wing extremists, attempting to assert the power of government in each of their societies.  bin Laden, as an Islamofascist, wishes for the dominance of a religious order.  Hitler, with his National Socialist German Workers Party, wished for the dominance of his oligarchy and eliminated all those who opposed his rule.  Stalin went so far as to remake the Soviet State, killing millions in the process.

Barack Obama has, on many occasions, expressed his desire to remake the United States.  This is not to say he is another Hitler, or Mussolini, or Mao.  However, his actions of the past several months have prompted even overt socialists, such as Hugo Chavez, to marvel at the speed at which the United States is being subverted by government.

If any group in today’s America resembles the Nazi ideal, it is the liberal movement represented by the Democrat Party.  They are the ones who advocate killing children who don’t meet societal expectations.  They are the ones who train the children that manage to escape the abortion doctors to love the government, rather than the nation which houses it.  They are the ones who oppose the idea of a Creator God as often as possible.  They are the ones who seek to control your habits, your preferences, and your future.

The vast majority of those who are writing frustrated e-mails to Shepard Smith are not right-wing extremists.  Rather, they are Constitutionalists, seeking to move our government back to the Founders’ compromise, where the rule of law is honored and the Constitution, including the requirements for those wishing to be president of the United States, is followed.