Harry Binswanger On Glenn Beck

[dadmonson]

Here is Harry Binswanger's latest interview on Glenn Beck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOs6F1FpVlo

[Axiomatic]

Here is Harry Binswanger's latest interview on Glenn Beck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOs6F1FpVlo

Sometimes I want to slap Glenn Beck. What was that nonsense at the end, really, was that necessary? Well, this is Fox news and Glenn is an Uber moron.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Axiomatic

[themadkat]

Sometimes I want to slap Glenn Beck. What was that nonsense at the end, really, was that necessary? Well, this is Fox news and Glenn is an Uber moron.

I saw this and honestly I was really disappointed. Trying to retcon the Nazis as leftist flies in the face of history and sense. Binswager is wrong about the nature of the Right. They are no more aligned towards freedom and individualism than the left. I think it is a mistake for Objectivism to affiliate itself with the Right or for Oists to consider themselves politically to the right. What would be a better option, in my opinion, is to junk the whole left/right dichotomy as the false alternative garbage it is and just stand for what we are, supporters of individual rights and capitalism. And I seriously wish Objectivists could find a better show to go on than Glenn Beck.

[TheEgoist]

I'll repost the comment I made on Reality Talk to here.

" “The Right Wing is about individual rights.”. Have to disagree with Binswanger here. The false political dichotomy is not one of collectivism——individualism. Unless you want to say that characters like Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Pat Robertson are actually Leftists, this statement of the Right being about individualism seems pretty silly and naive. Dr. Binswanger is correct that racism is a form of collectivism, and really a perfect example of the ludicrous nature of arbitrarily grouping people and making broad, unscientific explanations about them which is what collectivism is"

[Thales]

I saw this and honestly I was really disappointed. Trying to retcon the Nazis as leftist flies in the face of history and sense. Binswager is wrong about the nature of the Right. They are no more aligned towards freedom and individualism than the left. I think it is a mistake for Objectivism to affiliate itself with the Right or for Oists to consider themselves politically to the right. What would be a better option, in my opinion, is to junk the whole left/right dichotomy as the false alternative garbage it is and just stand for what we are, supporters of individual rights and capitalism. And I seriously wish Objectivists could find a better show to go on than Glenn Beck.

The Nazis were absolutely leftists. That is rock solid. As to the right being more for the individual, historically it's been the case, but not as much in recent times.

[TheEgoist]

If we are going historical, then no, the "Right" has not been individualistic.

Lets go back to the beginnings of the Right/Left Dichotomy: 18th century France. The Russian revolutionaries (A'la Rousseau) were placed on the Left side of the Hall, and those who continued support of the Aristocracy were on the right. So, the original meaning of "Right" referred to those who were in favor of aristocracy and birth right.

Fact is "Right/Left" is an utter bullshit way of analyzing the political landscape. We could consider President Mahmoud of Iran on the Right, because of his opposition to communism and his ardent social conservatism and appeal to religion. But of course, you can't just put him, Pinochet, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Benito Mussolini in the same category. Binswanger should (And probably does) know better.

Edited June 12, 2009 by TheEgoist

[Thales]

Binswanger should (And probably does) know better.

Binswanger is very careful about these things. He's one of the most careful and thoughtful thinkers I know.

If you go back to Ronald Reagan, he was more for individual liberty, for example. Try this 1964 speech on socialized medicine. At about 7 minutes 30 seconds especially you'll find individual liberties mentioned, but the whole speech is pretty good. Before that point he talks about doctors' rights.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Thales

[Hodges'sPodges]

Binswanger said, "There was a deal made between the communists and the Nazis in Germany in the '30s where they each agreed to define themselves as the opposite of the other."

Where is that documented? Where can one find out more about it?

Also, since his point is that the Nazis were called 'National Socialists' which is left aligned with communism in name, wouldn't such a deal have been to define (actually name rather than define?) themselves as the opposite of themselves, not of each other? But then what definition did the communists adopt as either the opposite of the Nazis or as the opposite of themselves?

Also, wasn't the word 'Socialist' brought into the the name of the party as early as around 1920?

Edited June 13, 2009 by Hodges'sPodges

[2046]

It was actually, as I understand it, that the National Socialists considered themselved a "Third Way" in opposition to communism and capitalism and aligned themselved neither left nor right.

If you spend some time looking, you can see a multitude of alliances and pacts between the communists and the nazis who both considered themselves "socialists" and both considered capitalism to be a common enemy.

Edited June 13, 2009 by 2046

[Hodges'sPodges]

It was actually, as I understand it, that the National Socialists considered themselved a "Third Way" in opposition to communism and capitalism and aligned themselved neither left nor right.

Binswager described it as an agreement of two gangs to exclude all other gangs and also to exclude a non-gang state-of-affairs.

If you spend some time looking, you can see a multitude of alliances and pacts between the communists and the nazis who both considered themselves "socialists" and both considered capitalism to be a common enemy.

Well, yes, I only need to look at the Hitler-Stalin pact to see an alliance. But I was hoping for some direct references to the specific claim that there was in the '30s an agreement between German communists and Nazis to define themselves as the opposite of each other (or of themselves?). Edited June 13, 2009 by Hodges'sPodges

[Thales]

The wider concept here is collectivism. The Nazis were collectivists, and this made them leftist.

[2046]

Binswager described it as an agreement of two gangs to exclude all other gangs and also to exclude a non-gang state-of-affairs.

Biswanger is right. Both gangs had paramilitary troops running around intimidating rivals and silencing political opposition. Both gangs wanted to destroy democracy and abolish the republic and thus any centrist or liberal party was a common enemy. Both gangs were radically anti-capitalist.

Well, yes, I only need to look at the Hitler-Stalin pact to see an alliance. But I was hoping for some direct references to the specific claim that there was in the '30s an agreement between German communists and Nazis to define themselves as the opposite of each other (or of themselves?).

I don't know of any such agreement in the 30's specifically between the KDP and the NAZI parties to define themselves, maybe Dr. Biswanger should elaborate a little more on that. I do know that when Hitler was granted absolute power as Chancellor in 1933, one of his first acts was to officially ban the KDP and make any display of party insignia other than Nazi illegal.

I have never known of any evidence that either the Nazis or the German Nationalist Party ever called themseves right wing. I would also assert the defining fascism as extreme right wing is a product of anti-capitalist propaganda and is broadly accepted by intellectuals in this country, even if still a subject of debate among few.

In any event, the point of the Glenn Beck Show segment by Dr. Biswanger is that the intellectuals and the leftists in the media were attempting to take advantage of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum by categorizing the alleged Jew-hating fascist suspect as right wing in order to intimidate conservatives and/or score some political points.

[TheEgoist]

The wider concept here is collectivism. The Nazis were collectivists, and this made them leftist.

Pinochet was a collectivist.

The religious right are collectivists.

That doesn't mean they are Leftists.

[Thales]

Pinochet was a collectivist.

The religious right are collectivists.

That doesn't mean they are Leftists.

The religious right aren't collectivists. They see god as the one the individual should bow before.

Collectivists see the group as the highest value.

[Hodges'sPodges]

The wider concept here is collectivism. The Nazis were collectivists, and this made them leftist.

I don't know whehter that is intended as a reply to my question. If it is, then I just note that I'm not opining as to the wider concept, but rather I'm asking about a specific matter of history.

[Hodges'sPodges]

Biswanger is right. Both gangs had paramilitary troops running around intimidating rivals and silencing political opposition. Both gangs wanted to destroy democracy and abolish the republic and thus any centrist or liberal party was a common enemy. Both gangs were radically anti-capitalist.

The question is specifically as to a "deal" between German communists and Nazis.

Immediately following the quote about a deal to define themselves, Binswanger continues:

"You see the percentage in that. You define my gang and your gang and rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang war, so it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the the Weimar Republic in the '30s.

[2046]

The question is specifically as to a "deal" between German communists and Nazis.

Immediately following the quote about a deal to define themselves, Binswanger continues:

"You see the percentage in that. You define my gang and your gang and rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang war, so it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the the Weimar Republic in the '30s.

Yeah. So didn't I just answer your question or is that where you stopped reading?

[Hodges'sPodges]

Yeah. So didn't I just answer your question or is that where you stopped reading.

Of course I read the rest of your post. The point of my response was merely to be clear that my own question about GANG division was as to the specific matter of some deal between them (and I didn't claim that you had ignored that). You also noted that you don't know about a deal regarding their self-definitions; my reply was not about that particular matter but about whether that deal extended to a common strategy in actual mutual gang warring.

[2046]

Of course I read the rest of your post. The point of my response was merely to be clear that my own question about GANG division was as to the specific matter of some deal between them (and I didn't claim that you had ignored that). You also noted that you don't know about a deal regarding their self-definitions; my reply was not about that particular matter but about whether that deal extended to a common strategy in actual mutual gang warring.

I see. Specifically, they did have self-definitions as I originally stated, however I know of no deal or arrangement between the KDP (German Communist Party) and the NAZI (National Socialist German Worker's Party) parties agreeing on self-definitions. As to a common strategy, as I previously mentioned, the common strategy was anti-capitalism and to oppose democracy and abolish the Republic.

I think you are picturing an actual meeting wherein both parties had representatives attending some sit-down conference where a treaty was drawn up agreeing on what to call each other. I think Dr. Biswanger was referring to "you define my gang and your gang and we both oppose any other option such as freedom without gang rule" as the mutual agreement of both gangs destroy each other and to oppose laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, and their common mission to destroy any liberal or democratic government. Does that answer your question?

As far as this left wing right wing thing goes, if I understood him correctly, he was certainly saying if you define "left" as collectivist and "right" as individualist, then all those groups that were mentioned such as fascist dictators and theocratic "conservatives" are absolutely leftist.

[Grames]

The question is specifically as to a "deal" between German communists and Nazis.

Immediately following the quote about a deal to define themselves, Binswanger continues:

"You see the percentage in that. You define my gang and your gang and rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang war, so it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the the Weimar Republic in the '30s.

The international socialist movement bifurcated over the issue of World War One. Socialists in Russia led by Lenin were against the war. Socialists in Italy led by Mussolini were not participating in the war, but were in favor of entering on the Allied side. The Russian socialists denounced the Italian socialists, and ever since fascism has been distinguished from communism by the communists as rightist.

Mussolini and Hitler embraced the rightist label between the wars because it made them seem to be the opposite of those scary Russian Bolsheviks, aiding their own quest for power by delegitimizing every other political party just as Binswanger described. I don't think there was ever a formal meeting or strategy white paper written up, it wasn't needed or possible since communists and fascists refused to speak to each other.

edit: I recommend Liberal Fascism as a history of progressive thought in America and its European influences.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Grames

[Lemuel]

And I seriously wish Objectivists could find a better show to go on than Glenn Beck.

I agree, but are there better shows?

Not that Beck is the best, but is there any show in the mainstream media that is run by a pro-reason host? They're all conservatives or liberals of varying degrees.

I wonder if the reason why Binswanger, Ghate, Brook and others go on these shows is that they're the only ones that invite Objectivists. It's better to have these men interviewed on TV for a couple of minutes -- even though the show's host is intellectually misaligned with Obejctivism -- than for the Institute not to have any TV exposure at all. I've noticed that the issues and opinions in ARC press releases are largely favored by conservatives: economy, foreign policy, etc.

What would be nice would be to see Objectivist scholars get a chance to call out conservatism on these issues. I like it when Brook goes on TV and is allowed to express a pro-capitalist opinion, but it's annoying that he can't get in a "conservatives are guilty, too" statement.

I doubt it will ever happen, though; these partisan talk show hosts largely have guests who will validate their opinions, not challenge them in any meaningful way.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Lemuel

[TheEgoist]

The representatives of the ARI should go on any show that will respectfully hear them out. That could be Beck, OReilly, Olbermann or any other mainstream news program. Beck has just been the one who has invited people like Yaron on the most. Cavuto had him on a lot before, as did multiple FOX business shows.

[themadkat]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a BETTER show, but perhaps it would be interesting to see an Objectivist to go on Rachel Maddow and challenge her liberal views. It's not so much that she's pro-reason as that she's reasonABLE, meaning I think she would let the person talk and give them a fair shake even if she didn't agree. She's had lots of interesting guests on her show, and she frequently talks with Pat Buchanan, who even though they're polar opposites she seems to have a weird kind of respect for. Barring that, there's always John Stewart. Why John Stewart? Because that's what my generation watches in rapt attention, and that's really who Oists should be trying to reach.

I agree, but are there better shows?

Not that Beck is the best, but is there any show in the mainstream media that is run by a pro-reason host? They're all conservatives or liberals of varying degrees.

I wonder if the reason why Binswanger, Ghate, Brook and others go on these shows is that they're the only ones that invite Objectivists. It's better to have these men interviewed on TV for a couple of minutes -- even though the show's host is intellectually misaligned with Obejctivism -- than for the Institute not to have any TV exposure at all. I've noticed that the issues and opinions in ARC press releases are largely favored by conservatives: economy, foreign policy, etc.

What would be nice would be to see Objectivist scholars get a chance to call out conservatism on these issues. I like it when Brook goes on TV and is allowed to express a pro-capitalist opinion, but it's annoying that he can't get in a "conservatives are guilty, too" statement.

I doubt it will ever happen, though; these partisan talk show hosts largely have guests who will validate their opinions, not challenge them in any meaningful way.

[TheEgoist]

Rachel Maddow? Reasonable? Hahahaha.

[2046]

ARI should accept invitations to speak on whatever shows will allow them to have a professional discussion without interruption or intentional disrespect.