[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: The Fuhrerprinzip, Why so-called conservatives embrace it The Fuhrerprinzip, Why so-called conservatives embrace it Sean Scallon Why does Rudy Guliani lead or has led the field of GOP presidential candidates in most polls since the beginning of the year, despite the fact he remains outside the party’s mainstream on issues like abortion, immigration and homosexual rights? Over 10 years ago such positions would have certainly terminated his campaign on the ground, as it had former California governor Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Arlen Specter back in 1996. But today, Guliani is a serious candidate for the GOP nomination regardless of those views. The reason for this has a lot to do with a peculiar fetish that some so-called conservatives have with the concept of “leadership.” Why would an ideology that supposedly is opposed to the concept of centralized power worship the proverbial “man on a white horse?” That depends on which form of centralized power we’re talking about. Some of intellectuals of the early conservative movement in the U.S. were raised in the authoritarian and monarchial Catholic Church. Some were political monarchists in sympathy and some were raised in the hierarchical society of the Old South. Such structures need strong leaders and authority figures. So as the ideas of the conservative movement trickled down to politicians and the voters themselves, the ranks of the conservative movement were filled with Catholics and filled with Southerners, who in particular were not only influenced by their hierarchical society but also by martial values as well. European conservatives were the same way. Also, add the fact that many conservatives, even the non-ideological ones, are businessmen and members of corporations. These are very structured and hierarchical entities as well and need strong leaders (CEOs or CFOs). Such persons were opposed to socialism and communism more for its anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, anti-Western and egalitarian values than for the fact that communism was a highly centralized form of government. So is an absolute monarchy. Indeed, the persons who regularly opposed centralized power in U.S. political discourse for many years were the Progressives, not conservatives. What changed this scene were World War II and the Cold War. The U.S. was locked into a struggle against two totalitarian socialist ideologies, fascism and communism. Fighting against such ideologies with traditional hierarchical conservatism wasn’t going to cut it. Conservatism had to become more populistic to attract a broader mass of people and it had to declare itself on the side of liberty, which it had not done in the past. This is where the libertarians come in, whether it was Ayn Rand or Fredrich von Hayek, the UChicago school or the Austrians. Most libertarians were concerned about the liberty of making money first and foremost, but political liberty and opposition to centralism went hand in hand with such views. Throw in a little Frank Meyer “fusionism” (it’s the government that makes people bad) and you have your conservative movement that eventually brought the Republican Party presidential nomination to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Since 1995 that movement has been blown to pieces as the authoritarians (or big-government conservatives if you want to call them that) have separated from the libertarians and watched their ideology morph into a right-wing social democracy that’s just a few-steps away from outright fascism. Fascist ideology has always put its emphasis on the principle of strong leadership or the furherprinzip and having that leader become the embodiment of the state, the nation and the people. Or, as best explained in the original German, ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer. A movement full of authoritarians was going to inevitably develop a cult of leadership and such a cult was encouraged by the neoconservative arrivals in the 1970s and 80s who worshipped such strong leaders throughout history whether they were Lincoln, Trotsky, Roosevelt, Churchill, Pinochet and Reagan. Authoritarian conservatives, of course, had their Francos and their MacArthurs and Daleys. They had no time for the libertarians of the Goldwater stripe given his lack of will to power, which is probably why Goldwater lost most non-ideological conservatives to Lyndon Johnson back in 1964, believe it or not. They also were strongly opposed to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton during their terms in the White House because neither man, they felt, had the stature or the leadership qualities to fill the job. Such conservatives believe in a strong executive branch government. Dick Cheney is the perfect example of this kind of so-called conservative as he has spent much of his career trying to create the all-powerful presidency. Guliani is the modern manifest of this leadership cult. He’s the man who brought order to a chaotic New York during the 1990s. He’s the man who was in command during 9-11, walking amid the ruins, giving order and being in charge (compared to say, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin who spent his crying and moaning on the radio about not getting help during Hurricane Katrina.). In the wake of the incompetencies of the Bush II Administration, Guliani is the perfect tonic for many right-wing social democrats looking for new leadership to right their so-called War on Terror. Abortion, immigration and homosexual rights are mere sideshows and distractions compared to fighting a war. This is a time for big government to fight our enemies, not less. Elections have a way of framing themselves around certain issues, personalities and, of course the cultural zeitgeist. As far as the Republicans are concerned, their nominating process has been framed by the episode at a South Carolina debate between Guliani and Ron Paul. It’s the only memorable of the campaign so far. Paul championed the old libertarian doctrine with a paleo twist and Guliani charged after him on his white horse wanting to slay the old ally that had now become foe and claim his mantel of leadership. Those in the audience steeped the in worship of the leadership cult, cheered Guliani on. But instead of slaying Paul, the battle was now joined and its one the Republicans should have. But if Guliani wins the battle in the end, could his followers at least have the decency to admit who they really are and what they really stand for instead of pretending to inherit a movement that no longer exists and use a term that long has outlived its definitions? Our politics is in desperate need of a new program to tell who the players are and what teams they play for. Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and journalist living in Arkansaw, Wisconsin
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Guliani is the modern manifest of this leadership cult. Reminds me of "Imperial Presidency" written about Nixon when Cheney was just getting his start. But there's more than an Imperial Presidency now, there's a fourth branch of government influencing and directing the new dictatorship.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||