On the Harley forum I'm on, there are liberals. I know, it's odd to me, too. But there's one in particular. A lawyer. I know you're as shocked as I was.
But I digress. We were having a debate and I posed the question about which side wants smaller government. He then posts this chart.
I'm looking at the chart and see Nazism and Fascism as right wing. In my definition, the right wing of government wants SMALLER government, which Nazism and Fascism don't come close.
So I asked him again, which side wants smaller government. This was his response.
Both. Neither. it doesn't matter. That is not what defines them.
At the extreme ends, the right is the bigger government and the left has none. Those are also the extremes where you get slavery regardless of ideology. Slavery of no government and slavery of intrusive government.
In the middle, where you have the best chance of freedom, the difference in size of government is not significant and also not the distinguishing feature.
It was then it dawned on me. He really is clueless to what it means to be conservative. I know. I'm a slow learner. I can't help it if I'm a former short bus window licker.
Well there are many different axis that can be used to measure political ideas as part of a spectrum - Fiscal Policy and personal freedom being the most popular.
But this chart does neither-- and I would ask what variable he thinks is changing as you move along the axis.
And if he thinks that chart makes sense as it is then you need him to explain the variable being measured and how it changes as you move along the axis. You should open with that. Just pretend to be stupid- liberals LOVE explaining sh*t to you because they are so smart.. - and then ask him to explain something he can't. Like his own F'ing chart.
If he refuses, double down and point out that a monarchy's polices are based on the personal polices of the monarch. Its inclusion on this chart demonstrates that this spectrum line is NOT about polices undertaken or a belief system , but merely about the system of government advocated - who is in charge and makes the decisions, and how its claims its powers to be legitimate.
SO we have American conservatives advocating for a Limited Constitutional Government with a separation of powers and both elective and appointed elements which derives its legitimate power from the Consent of the Governed and progresses directly to a Dictatorship that derives its power from a claim that GOD put this man on earth to lead. We have Liberals ( who laughingly are separate from Socialists - You can also have fun asking how Socialist and Democrats differ) who basically believe in full democracy and majority rule - with the claim that the common good trumps the rights of the individual. But they still want enlightened elites ( a master race) to step in and override populist decisions when they don't conform to their ideology - Like overriding the Gay Marriage sentiments or same sex bathroom sentiments of the nations.
The NAZIs inscribed around every Reichsmark coin. "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual") And consequently justify their power on the SAME BASIS as Liberals do including the idea that a master race of enlightened individuals must control the lesser races. ,
As you progress further left, the more the special elites are guiding the population because they are better - smarter, more moral , etc, till you end in monarchy - where a single man rules by as most fit by the will of God, Creation, the universe or whatever.
To the right of Conservatism would come anarchy. Conservatives believe in LIMITING government power by the consent of the governed - meaning the locus of power shifts from the Group being right ( liberals) to the individual ceding some of his power to a government by consent.. and Anarchist believe there is no such thing as a legitimate government and each individual is sovereign.
And after you tell him that remind him that just because he finds a chart doesn't mean that the chart is true or makes sense. Also point out that the "conservative party" in Germany wanted to restore the monarchy, so point out that whatever moron made the chart obviously conflated the two in his stupidity and was obviously is unaware that conservative means different things in different countries depending on what Status quo they wish to conserve..
And then ask him about that other common axis - personal freedom. He admits in his response that such freedom is desirable because he is looking for the "best chance at it" - and yet he supports a side that supports the tyranny of the majority. They don't support a limited government ( and if he says he does counter with asking him to show you in the constitution where the Federal government was granted the power to do Obamacare, welfare social security) or where it grants justices the power to change The Constitution when needed rather than simply interpret it ( you will get the "malleable word" argument and then you have to engage in fair reading. If your mortgage says " 3 percent" is it a fair reading if a judge says it really means 5% ? If not, then how is something that reads "penalty" also become a "tax" _ there are limits to what a word means - and te government is only legitimate under informed consent - if the people signing the document understood a word to mean one ting, you can't legitimately expand that definition, or twist the rods to mean something else. Then cite Blackstone's rules for legal interpretation which have been the standard since the 1600s.
Ask him to give you a list according which systems allow the most Personal Freedom and exercise of Individual rights. "Smaller Government" implies this, but with libtards you really have to be as blunt and in their face with the idea as possible.
And then you can take the policy angle and ask him to list the policies and ideas that the modern American conservatives have in common with Monarchists, Nazis or Fascists.
Nazis and Conservatives are both "nationalists" in that they put the good of their own citizens above the good of non-citizens, and that includes deportation of law breaking aliens - but not as Hitler's party suggested - ALL aliens. And there the similarities end.
the second word in Nationalialsozialist, is Socialist.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htmNazis supported Gun Control, Universal Heath care, universal education including college including indoctrination into NAZI ways of thinking, State promotion of healthy diet and exercise the abolishment of unearned income ( income from interest or owned property) , nationalization of trusts, confiscation of war profits, profit sharing in large industry, increase in old-age pensions, the seizure of land from the rich, abandoment of laws that "serve a materialist ordering of the world" , the persecution of anyone not serving the common good or press publishing "lies" as determined by the State , and Religious Freedom where the religion does not conflict with the State ( say by forcing people to bake cakes for Gays)
Also note that these 25 points include the phrase "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD "
And then ask him to compare and contrast the NAZIs with the liberals and Democrat platform and then tell you which the NAZis have more in common with. If he balks, and he will, remind him that compare and contrast is an exercise they start having kids do in the 1st grade.
I know its work to respond to this guy and that you will NEVER convince him. But others watching the conversation in the forum will see it, and it might change some minds or at least encourage some to look a little deeper or deepen their own convictions. And this really is an easy one to win - He can't defend his own chart , and he can't do the compare and contrast exercise without his brain exploding.
Please plagiarize freely from the above to WHACK this asshole and remind him to keep talking about Harleys because he is an ignorant libtard. Plus it will feel good.