My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

The Tip Jar

  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation

Help Save the Post Office: My snail mail address

  • Lance Mannion
    109 Third St.
    Wallkill, NY 12589

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff

The one, the only

Sister Site

« Tolstoy on marriage; Hemingway on non-violence | Main | How the weather was »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

R.A. Rubin

Oh come on! FDR did everything he could to head off the wild men of the Dem Party. They wanted a Communist State. McCarthy, yeah, he was wrong, he didn't find the real Communists running wild in Washington and Hollywood. A pipe dream of a mini-skirt mouthpiece, you couldn't debate Ann Coulter. She'd burn you with facts. Today the Dem party is all about keeping Black people on welfare. Congradulations.


What a liberal fantasyland version of history. Conservatives supported Hitler and Mussolini? The number of liberals who actively supported Stalin dwarfed the few flakes on the right who were "sympathetic" to the Nazis.

Misunderstanding history and honoring communist pukes in Hollywood are some of the reasons you clowns keep losing elections, so I won't complain. But I won't be visiting any more blogs that OGIC recommends. A Gilmore Girls marathon would be more enlightening.


Yes, Nola, quite a few conservatives were more than slightly enthralled by far right dictators. Let's take the America First Committee, whose leadership included many US Senators, the CEO of Sears, Col. McCormick and 850,000 members (by no means a few flakes). While initially the defense of the AFC was that it gained wide support primarily due to pacifism may seem plausible, almost all of it's supporters remained as Lindbergh began to shift from pacifism to open anti-Semitism and an undeniable attraction to the Nazi regime.

Senator Robert Taft, probably the foremost leading figure in the Republican party for the entire middle of the century, refused to outright condemn Lindbergh even though he admitted Lindbergh was an anti-Semite.

Then there's the conservative love affairs with Franco, Pinochet, Yew, etc.


Reagan isn't Caesar; he's Tiberius. And Bush is Caligula.


The America First crowd do look foolish in retrospect, but to characterize them as pro-Nazi is wrong. Even Lindbergh realized he misjudged the Germans and went on to serve his country in the war. Many liberals have misjudged evil leaders but that isn't the same as saying they supported them.

We can play ping pong all day over who supported who - Stalin? Castro? Ortega? - but arguing that conservatives were on the wrong side of every argument in the 20th century is ridiculous. Liberals keep getting more hysterical as they lose and lose and lose...

roy edroso

"Liberals keep getting more hysterical as they lose and lose and lose..."

On the contrary: becoming acquainted with failure (without lying to ourselves, as your kind are wont to do, that it is really victory) has given us the humility, genial wit, and resigned, worldly-wise air of Charles Laughton in Spartacus. This makes us very pleasant company, which is no doubt why you sought us out.

Now, if you could suppress your coprolaliac urge to scream Free Republic talking points in our presence, you might get a better reception.


Why would you put a link to directly to Ann Coulter's book? There's plenty of her blather available for free.


Lori, It was easiest. To link to any of her free blather I would have had to actually read it. I've got enough of her ravings rolling around inside my head right now. Also, the book is her most sustained attempt to rewrite history and it does include a defense of Joe McCarthy that even some conservatives were appalled by.


I commend you on your humility. It's always charming when someone takes the time to point out their own favorable qualities and compare themselves to movie characters. But I wouldn't characterize someone who accuses conservatives of being on the wrong side of every major issue in the 20th century as particularly pleasant company.

roy edroso

Not that I accept the characterization, nola, but if we're such unpleasant company, then why, oh why do you keep comin' 'round?



See, your argument keeps backing off - first, it's clearly the liberals who are all supporting Stalin whilst the conservatives are guiltless, then you admit huge numbers of people on both sides managed to stain themselves pretty thoroughly last century. What retreating position you'll move to next I'm not certain, but I'm sure we'll find out shortly.

I would say that, yes, conservatives (or perhaps we should call them McKinleyite Republicans) have actually been on the wrong side of every major issue of the twentieth century. Hell, the National Review openly and consistently rejected the right of black people to register to vote (forget actually voting) until the 1970s. To any reasonable interpretation, the conservatives in America strongly supported the Jim Crow tyrannies of the American South - one-party states with sham elections, structural and constant use of political violence and terrorism, apartheid regimes and oligarchic elites controlling Potemkin-village politics.


Because when I post something, I like to go back and see what others are saying. Don't worry, I'll be gone soon enough and you can get back to worshipping Hollywood communists, crying about Reagan, etc.


No, burritoboy, I haven't backed off at all. The were many more liberals supporting Stalin (and Castro, and Ortega...) than there were conservatives supporting Hitler or Mussolini. I do admit that there are conservatives as well as liberals who have made mistakes, but only a crackpot (like you?) would deny that.

I don't think this forum lends itself to arguing the entire 20th century but if you want to post a 10,000 word essay feel free. If your nutty allegation against National Review is any indication, this essay would be a real hoot.


Unfortunately, I wish that my allegations about National Review weren't so nutty:

1. Blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote:

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes"

National Review, August 24, 1957

2. Brown vs. Board of Education is wrong, segregation should continue:

"But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named 'civil rights movement' – that is, the Negro revolt . . . . But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us. . . . "

National Review, June 2, 1964

3. Martin Luther King is a terrorist:

"For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the 'cake of custom' that holds us together. With their doctrine of 'civil disobedience' they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes . . . that it is perfectly all right to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance. . . . And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted 'school strikes' sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit violation of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed . . . ."

National Review, September 7, 1965

4. On April 8, 1969, William Buckley wrote (under his own byline) a column entitled "On Negro Inferiority", praising openly racist psuedo-scientists.



The reason American conservatives weren't supporting Hitler and Mussolini and some extreme Leftists supported Stalin (though most Leftists turned against Stalinism once the facts about him had been fully revealed) is that conservatives pretend to be nationalists - i.e., conservatives tend not to openly worship leaders from other countries. Meanwhile, of course, the Left has always seen explicitly itself as a international movement (thus, worship of a foreign leader is acceptable).

So, it's a fake argument. The truth is that conservatives, worldwide, have very often supported home-grown tyrants. The American right strongly supported the racist Southern one-party tyrannies, as my quotes from National Review above prove. The Spanish right, of course, supported Franco. The French right had their own home-grown fasciti leader in Cl. de La Rocque (and later attempted to overthrow the French government when it tried to withdraw from Algeria). And so on.

harry near indy

my my professor mannion, the wingnuts are out and flying!

ya know, two steps forward and one step back.

and yes, you conservatives are/have been on the wrong side of history.

harry near indy

burrito boy,

i'd recommend reading john lukacs, a historian who writes well.

he said the history of the right during the 20th century was the conflict between the reactionary conservatives -- he gives churchhill as his prime example -- and the radical nationalists -- and he gives hitler as his prime example.

it's a lotta loose talk on the net, but these folks here are closer to hitler than churchill.

and if the nazis had not tried the final solution, they would be supported by more respectable people than you could imagine.

that's why many on the right supported franco -- he didn't have anything like that. he just killed and imprisoned some, but not a lot, of his opponents.

plus, he made his peace with the roman catholic church, an organization that oughta go out of business any time soon -- if not now.


So the fact that lefties perceive themselves as internationalists excuses their love affairs with Stalin, Castro, Ortega et al? Your blather about the differences between conservatives and liberals may be interesting from an academic standpoint but the uncomfortable fact remains that far more American lefties have gone in for murderous thugs than conservatives have.

As I said before, I've never claimed that my side has never been wrong. You've taken four quotes from NR, a magazine that has been around for 50 years. I'm sure the Nation could fill a large book with its idiocy, though you and your kooky friend harry undoubtedly disagree.

But it is nice that people like you have a place to retreat from reality. I know it has been frustrating watching your movement collapse. It must gall you that lefties like John Kerry don't even have the backbone to admit they are liberal. Oh, well you can always toast the memory of those brave Hollywood commies.


Nola, Being a conservative means being conservative. It means being against change and prefering to stick with the tried and true and maintaining traditions. Since most good in the world comes through rejecting outworn traditions and through change, this has usually put conservatives on the wrong side of history. It doesn't make them bad people. Just wrong a lot.

American conservatives were sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolinni, the same way American communists were sympathetic to Stalin. Doesn't mean they liked what the fascists eventually did, any more than the Left liked what Stalin did once they found out what he was up to. (This is not a good time to get into Amercian conservativism's trational anti-semitism. Cf Country clubs, Ivy League admissions policies.) But it was a scary time to be for maintaining the status quo; a lot of people were very unhappy with the Depression, you know. Conservatives liked the idea of a strong leader who could keep the unruly working class in line. They hated FDR (whom they ridiculed and called Rosenfeld---but now we're back to the anti-semitism.)and conservatives in Congress actively worked against his attempts to get the country ready for war. Hitler was pretty sure the US would stay out of the fight long enough for him to defeat England. He was sure of that because American conservatives were doing a good job of keeping us out of it as it was.

Once the war started most American conservatives joined the fight. The President's dad, for one. Even though his family had strong financial ties with Germany that made them reluctant to oppose Hitler before the war.

Conservatives have often come around on the ideas they opposed at the start, which is why many conservatives find things to like about FDR and JFK and Martin Luther King. Those guys now represent the old and traditional.

But, Nola, OGIC didn't recommend my page for my deep political thinking, and definitely not for this one post. She likes the things I write about movies, books, TV, and life in general. Why don't you look around? You might find we agree on things other than politics. You might even have fun.

But if you really want to just find reasons to get mad and call us all commies, there are plenty other posts that will make your blood boil. Check out the stuff under the category Rants.

Thanks for stopping by and for giving us all a good fight. And I hope that no matter what you think of my page you still give OGIC the benefit of the doubt when she makes a recommendation.


Lance - As I've said before, this kind of forum doesn't really lend itself to hashing out major issues and who was right or wrong more often in the 20th century is obviously a major issue. I don't agree with your characterization of conservatives attitudes towards the fascists, and I have to chuckle at how you describe "conservatives" as supporting Hitler and "communists" as supporting Stalin, rather than liberals. Also, I never called you commies, I criticized the support given to commies by the American left. Be that as it may, it is your blog and I'm not going to try and change your political philosophy.

As for the site in general, when OGIC recommended it the first thing I came across was that one post I responded to. But I have looked around your page does have much to recommend it. Lots of great literary, film and baseball info, a nice design, etc. So I tip my hat to you and will try to give OGIC the benefit of the doubt on future recommendations, notwithstanding her Gilmore Girls fascination!


Well Lance,

I would say that movies and literature are inherently political and thus, a blog focusing on film and literature is about politics, whether we want it to be or not.


I think the more fundamental question is what impact the far Right versus the conservatives versus the Left versus the liberals had in their own countries. In the retrospect of history, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ortega were perhaps the most vile tyrants in history and (some of) the Left was wrong to admire them.

However, the rubber really hits the road when you're talking about not foreign leaders but domestic politics. There were actual, tyrannical, murderous regimes in America - the Jim Crow states of the deep South. Places where you were murdered, or your house blown up, or your church burned down if you objected to the system. Entire states that had extensive internal counterintelligence agencies (i.e. that spied on their own populations), the full extent of which has only been revealed in the past few years. Entire sections of the country that were violent, oligarchic single-party states for generation after generation.

The fact is that the American far Right was born in those tyrannical states, and the conservatives strongly supported the South's regimes. Mainstream conservative magazines, such as National Review, strongly supported these regimes (and no, there aren't just those 4 quotes above - there are literally dozens of articles from the early decades of the magazine that have the exact same views). Magazines that mainstream conservative Senators and Presidents had no shame in reading extensively and supporting.

Meanwhile, while portions of the Left certainly were enamoured with Stalinism or Maoism at times, mainstream liberals nearly unanimously rejected that. Liberal Senators or Presidents would never be seen with Ramparts or Workers' Daily - and not only because of bad publicity, but because American liberals rejected extremist views.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis


April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books

Blog powered by Typepad