Mike Luckovich by Mike Luckovich
- October 02, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Chan Lowe by Chan Lowe
Gary Markstein by Gary MarksteinAbout Mike Luckovich
Mike Luckovich, editorial cartoonist of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for cartooning. His work also appears in Time, the New York Times and other media. He is distributed nationally by Creators Syndicate.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (43) Jump to Comments Form
ANandy said, about 1 month ago
No. Socialist Security.
nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago
No, it means you’re Democrats.
harleyquinn
said,
about 1 month ago
Nope rename repackage and merge with yet another Democratic fraud machine
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
The enemy within.
NoFearPup
said,
about 1 month ago
Actually this is what the Pubicans have been saying since 2006. John McCain made that same statement almost verbatim when he was running for President.
gbrucewilson said, about 1 month ago
Acorn did not lose sight of their mission. Acorn is a criminal enterprise. Period.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
Careful, they a part of 0bama Brownshirt army.
vhammon
said,
about 1 month ago
Politifact says Acorn has received about $53 million since 1994, or an average of $3.5 Million per year.
That’s probably less money than defense contractors skim fraudulently in a minute. They get hired back again and again for multi BILLION contracts (that is 1000 times a million), even when their fraud causes the deaths of our servicemen (e.g. the faulty showers installed by repeat defense contractor, KBR, that electrocuted at least 18 soldiers)
To the people who are hysterical about the possibility that Acorn is misusing some percentage of a couple million federal dollars per year: could you please consider that you are being effectively manipulated to focus on trivia and to keep your attention away from the big issues.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/michele-bachmann/bachmann-claims-acorn-has-access-85-billion-federa/
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
” … could you please consider that you are being effectively manipulated to focus on trivia and to keep your attention away from the big issues.”
Brown-shirts - and what they stand for is the big issue!!!
The gibberish about an occasional malfeasance involving our military-industrial complex, which occurs in any major endeavor, though it doesn’t excuse it, serves as a distraction from the very real and present danger(s) to America!
vhammon
said,
about 1 month ago
So, help me understand: tell me what you mean by “Brown shirts” -what do they represent for you –and how you see them in children singing a song they made up about our current president.
(I know that the Nazi police were called Brown Shirts…I’m asking what you mean in today’s context)
I’m also puzzled that you dismiss the electrocution of our servicemen through faulty, poorly executed, extraordinarily expensive construction, as “gibberish.” It sounds like you want to ignore malfeasance when they’re carrying ammunition and focus on it when they’re in elementary school.
HARVIN GWIN said, about 1 month ago
To a fascist like petergrt life has no value except as slave labor for a small group of corporate masters.Ironically,wanna be collaborators like pertergrt will be the first against the wall when it all falls down.
Tigger
said,
about 1 month ago
ANandy,
My Parets told me I would not see SS in 1975 before I started working.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
Conservative, capitalist, libertarian, individualist = fascist = Grotesque understanding of the term.
Collectivist, socialist, communist, statist, = fascist = Statement of fact.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Pretty strange conceptualization of what constitutes a “fact.” What are its criteria; because you “believe” it?
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
Words have meanings.
cdward said, about 1 month ago
I’m sorry peter, but your words are those of someone who has lost all reason.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
I am glad to see that our leftist friends disavow Fascism and don’t want to be associated with it. They have have, somewhat effectively, made it into a conservative malady.
Even some dictionaries have been so corrupted - Random House: “Fascism is right-wing dictatorship with a government-controlled economy and no opposition: right-wing dictatorship …” “government-controlled economy” - that really sounds conservative, doesn’t it?
The reality however is that Fascism is a decidedly leftist ideology. It has virtually nothing in common with conservatism, capitalism, individualism, libertarianism or any other traits of conservatism.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
OMG, even the dictionaries are in on the plot to control petergt!
Michigander said, about 1 month ago
Right on the money.
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago
“The reality however is that Fascism is a decidedly leftist ideology.”
Debatable. Fascism does state some similarities with communism, I don’t deny that. However, in fascism - or the closest we’ve seen to the perfect fulfillment of the idea - government worked with the big corporations, who controlled the economy. Often, they were let into government. Communism had the state control the big corporations, putting its own men and women in them. Both use a big state and (eventually) expand its control over industry, but in a different way.
“It has virtually nothing in common with conservatism, capitalism, individualism, libertarianism or any other traits of conservatism.”
And here you go off-track. I’m not sure how you define “conservatism*.” Fascism, however, used many moral calls that conservative parties generally use - patriotism foremost among them. In their actions and speeches, fascists were definitely anti-socialist and anti-communist, and politically they tended to ally with conservatives and pursue leftists. As for is relationship with capitalism, it’s a hit and miss - they did not, by and large, have a perfectly free market (focusing instead on having large corporations to work with), but private enterprise was the norm. Libertarianism and individualism it did not support, of course - what dictatoriship of any stripe would? Then again, conservatism does not always support those either. Conservatives, by and large, often support some elements of a strong state, such as the military, police and As for individualism… this is the ideology that is behind gay rights, abortion, and a lot of other things conservatives generally oppose. Communists opposed them too, btw.
*: When I speak of conservatives, of necessity I paint with a broad brush. The term “conservatism” can cover even more types of thinking and governance than “liberalism”, and that’s quite a feat.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
4uk4ata:
Very good analysis.
Large corporations are hardly ‘capitalistic’, and are anti-competitive, which is why they prefer statism. That is precisely why Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, sought to brake up very large companies / trusts …
Philosophically, Fascism is based upon Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche’s works, which espouses collectivism over individualism, among other key traits.
Those philosophies are fundamentally incongruous with free-market capitalism or basic principles of contemporary American Conservatism.
They are pure leftist philosophies!
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
A coalition of liberal groups will coordinate $350 million worth of efforts
to mobilize voters and advocate for candidates for the 2010 general election, its
leaders are expected to announce Tuesday.
They are billing it as the largest such effort ever across the liberal
spectrum. MoveOn.org, labor groups like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win, and other
organizations like Acorn, Women’s Voices Women Vote and the National Council of
La Raza will be taking part in the effort for the House and Senate races.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
Brownshirts are re-mobilizing.
crunkbot said, about 1 month ago
Here’s a definition:
petergrt: the sound of one clown fapping.
NoFearPup
said,
about 1 month ago
Is Acorn “hired” by Lefties to get out the vote and “win elections” or not? You Libs are the ones being disingenuous here. I’ll admit it may be pretty petty after all is said, though…
Remember, we are tyring to encourage/discourage a relatively small portion of the electorate in order to influence elections in contested precincts.
Gary Kleppe said, about 1 month ago
There isn’t anything wrong with trying to get out the vote and win elections.
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago
“Large corporations are hardly ‘capitalistic’, and are anti-competitive, which is why they prefer statism. That is precisely why Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, sought to brake up very large companies / trusts …”
Not quite. Large corporations have repeatedly pushed against regulation when they could. They would prefer a state that hampers them as little as possible. Nazi Germany didn’t care about unions, or labor conditions, or product safety. As for Roosevelt - while he was a Republican, presidents of both parties championed anti-trust measures. If anything, imo at present the GOP tends to be more opposed to anti-trust measures.
“Philosophically, Fascism is based upon Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche’s works, which espouses collectivism over individualism, among other key traits.”
My philosophic knowledge is a little rusty, but in general fascism was never that clearly defined. I think the above works might work for what Hitler had in mind… but not necessarily what happened, or what one could see in Mussolini’s Italy. To a degree, any tyrannical ideology depends on a powerful state, and will likely be based on statism. On the other hand, the influence (or adoption) of nationalism is fairly visible.
“Those philosophies are fundamentally incongruous with free-market capitalism or basic principles of contemporary American Conservatism.
They are pure leftist philosophies!”
I agree on the first part, might be persuaded to on the second, and disagree on the third. Fascism doesn’t work very well with free-market capitalism (organized industry is much easier to work with), but it definitely does not have anything against capitalism itself. The modes of production and wealth were clearly, even during the worst wartime years, held in private hands. IG Farben, Krupp and the rest worked for the government, had their bosses practically in the government, but they were not held by their own, private bosses - just as how GE or Ford were.
As for how close or far it is to contemporary American conservatism, it is a broad enough term to make comparison difficult. Fascist regimes, for example, stressed national identity and patriotism, which most conservatives support. They also preach a strong form of militarism, which to my understanding some conservatives support - and others do not. I disagree with the sweeping assessment that conservatives want a “smaller” state: many conservatives support the state mandating personal rights and morality issues such as abortion, gay marriage, drug prohibition and others*.
Finally, why I do not consider fascism to be a leftist ideology:
Politically, fascist parties were always staunchly anti-communists. In fact, both their party platform and agenda had communists as their main opponent (followed by socialists and liberals**). They would often ally with right-wing and fringe right parties to push their agenda.
Fascism preached solidarity and organization on a national basis, not class basis. Class and wealth inequality were accepted, if not promoted. This goes in the face of any leftist ideology
fascism cooperated and to a point incorporated the aristocracy and other oligarchic organizations (particularly in Japan and Italy, also elsewhere). Do note that most fascist regimes supported and defended institutions such as the monarchy or organized religion.
As I already mentioned, fascism relies on support of the upper class and incorporates large business in its structures, rather than nationalizing it by force or redistributing profits. While both lead to increased interaction between state and industry, the difference is fundamental - being more or less equal partners and a clear superior/subordinated position . Any leftist ideology aims for as flat social and income structure as possible.
If you would compare it to the current American left (a huge clarification, but then you also speak of the current American right), then the difference becomes even more pronounced. The predominant left-wing ideology in the US, as far as I can tell, is social liberalism - combining individual and moral freedoms with an state intervention aiming to reduce income inequality and ensure the rights of the individual. These are exactly the things the state is NOT for as far as fascism is concerned.
*: this contrasts with libertarians, who do not want the state to have any such powers, and “liberals”, who might favor a larger and more inclusive state, but not enforcing a certain moral code.
**: liberals in the continental European definition of the term. A closer term in the Anglo-Saxon political dictionary would be “libertarians” - the small-state, free-market crowd.
Magnaut
said,
about 1 month ago
4uk4ata….you take this too seriously…this not about philosophy its about getting rid of crooks and the crooks they elect
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago
Getting rid of crooks is usually a good thing, sure. However, if you don’t know what you are voting for, chances are you won’t like what you get.
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
“Large corporations have repeatedly pushed against regulation when they could.”
So what?. They also push - always, for protectionist measures, that are never in the best interest of the economy or the country, and most definitely not capitalistic.
Private ownership, particularly as it relates to big business, does not by itself mean, or even support capitalism. When a company reaches a dominant size, its ownership is mostly institutional - with its own agenda(s) and its interest is to protect itself from competition - from new comers, and thus they consort with big government on regulations that preserve their dominance.
“IG Farben, Krupp and the rest worked for the government, had their bosses practically in the government, …” My point exactly.
Modern day GE - the best connected Big Business to 0bama, from NBC -on.
Though there were many similarities, Nazism was not Fascism parse. They primarily differed on matters of race.
Fascism was more developed, for its been around a bit longer, and was based upon Plato’s Republic, with Machiavelli giving it some modern touches. Hitler on the other hand was more in tune with Nietzsche.
The reason they were both fervent anti-communists is because it was a competing ideology, not a mutually exclusive one.
” … many conservatives support the state mandating personal rights and morality issues such as abortion, gay marriage, drug prohibition and others*.”
Common, even taken to its maximum extreme you can’t possibly mean this to constitute Big State … .
I have to run … .
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago
@ petergrt - it appears you have a different definition of some terms. I definitely can not agree with the below statement, for example:
“Private ownership, particularly as it relates to big business, does not by itself mean, or even support capitalism.”
Private ownership, in itself, is one of the cornerstones of capitalism. The ideas of private enterprise and for-profit endeavor, which are based on the inviolability of private ownership, are central to capitalism. No, private ownership in itself might not be capitalism, but it is a huge part of it.
Basically, if you think that large, domineering or outright monopolist private enterprise is not capitalism, then much of the 1800s and early 1900s economy was not capitalist - despite what it was called at the time. Remember, when anybody talked about capitalism until WWII (especially the period between the late 1800s and the Great Depression), this is the system they described with it. AFAIK the term “capitalism” was coined by Marx, and he certainly did not consider the system dominated by small enterprise and a functional free market.
I could agree with you if you specify a form of free-market capitalism, which either lacks or opposes large, corporatist enterprise. Such enterprises have existed for a long, long time, so their absence is a non-issue. The other option - opposition - presupposes a state or an equivalent authority interfering in the market, if only to set and enforce rules.
As for the differences between fascism and nazism, keep in mind that fascism is fairly broadly defined. Many of the pre-WWII fascist regimes were strongly nationalist, which in the context of the monoethnic nations in Europe (or at least mostly monoethnic), made racism and xenophobia very easy to espouce. I consider Hitler’s Germany a fascist state, despite some elements unique to it, just as there were unique elements to Mussolini’s Italy or Showa Japan.
M Kitt
said,
about 1 month ago
The corporatists have always been more comfortable with right wing policies, W’s support of the petroleum industry (& their support of his party) is an outstanding example, our middle east oil ventures bear that out on a much larger scale specifically regarding the Iraq exportation agreements in progress and our occupation of that country in the first place as imposed on us by W Incorporated.
The latest SCOTUS decision is another good example, providing the rights given US under the constitution to corporate entities opens the floodgates for them to directly effect the outcome of elections (in comparison to the “indirect” campaign contributions). Roberts and the other GOP policy supporters have prevailed just as they did in 2000 Florida.
To continue in this vein, corporate wealth has been magnified under right wing policies by tax breaks for the wealthiest and corporations, the current huge prevailing disparity between pay scales in corporate settings closely reflects this mindset, the largest pay differential in any industrial national economy.
Our current healthcare reform proposals closely parallel corporate right wing policies too, only the “blue dogs” support the corporate interests on the left but the entire GOP is solidly in support of the current unsustainable (yet highly profitable) system.
Fascism is defined as the merging of Corporate entities and the State, GOP pushes that agenda on the rest of us to the greatest possible extent.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
After skimming through all these comments I had to put Obama’s song up again.
Obama came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our children, he killed our old
He took our taxes for his own need
We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for cree
Oh will we ever be set free?
Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the conservatives back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom a stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack
Run to the hills run for your lives
Run to the hills run for your lives
Soldier blue on the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good conservatives are tame
Selling them lies and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old
Run to the hills run for your lives
M Kitt
said,
about 1 month ago
Yeah, you do that, Striper. Run for your’ life from the Liberals who bring you relief from the “pain and misery” that W Incorporated imposed on all of us.
Why don’t we just refer to you as “Counter” as in counter-productive.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
I am just stating that Obama, democrats and the liberals are Rushing In Where Angels Fear to Tread.
Can you imagine how bad it can get real fast? Imagine Several more 9/11’s. Unemployment up to 20%.
Inflation out of control. Assassination attempts or actual assassinations.
I used to live out in the country, now would be a good time to live in the country. If any of the above items happens, the Rodney King incident is going to be just a blimp on the radar screen.
Magnaut
said,
about 1 month ago
don’t worry about attacks
O”BAMBI has our backs……….
That’s where he’s sticking his knife
jack75287 said, about 1 month ago
4uk4ata said, 1 day ago
“The reality however is that Fascism is a decidedly leftist ideology”.
About the best description I have ever heard on the subject. I lot of people don’t get it, to many people even my teachers in college did not know that. I was a little older after 6 years in the Army so I was a little less impressed and a lot more willing to stand up to them. One of them did not even know Eisenhower the Gen. who fought the Nazis was the same guy who was president.
M Kitt
said,
about 1 month ago
Typical right wing comments, that doctrine/ideology doesn’t stand up to factual, comparative examples so the replies consist of insults toward Obama and “complete agreement” about philosophical statements without substance, nursery rhymes. Just like Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, nothing substantial.
As usual the GOP constructs opinions around their ideology using vague party language of agreement with each other, platitudes and dogma.
Show me behavioral characteristics of Liberals equating them with Corporatists. The right wing aligns with that behavior completely and it’s not going to change.
jack75287 said, about 1 month ago
The thing about Nazi Fascism in the end it became communism to some extent. The Nazi party ran the government and the government ran all the corporations. Even small companies had strong oversight. Mom and Pop shops were left alone for the most part.
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago
@ Jack - petergrt is the one who claimed fascism is decidedly leftist. I disagree, for the most part - despite it being a strongly statist ideology, it has many traits that are incompatible with a communist (or socialist, for that matter) state, though yes - there are similarities.
Then again, imo the politica spectrum is more like an open circle than a line - there are some things that may appear far right in many communist states, and far left in fascist ones. The two may end up looking decidedly similar under pressure (as Hitler’s Germany was), though for different reasons.
Please keep in mind that while communism is a statist ideology, not every statist ideology is a left-wing one.
Aside from the entire thing, the “Obama song” is some good fearmongering ;) .
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Why, when I read striper77, do I always hear Charles Manson singing “Helter Skelter”?
petergrt said, about 1 month ago
” … while communism is a statist ideology, not every statist ideology is a left-wing one.”
Name and exception!
Or better yet, name a statist free-market capitalist system. The closest thing I can come up with is modern China …
M Kitt
said,
about 1 month ago
Stripe, just to clarify the impression I have, do you see those actions as coming from your’ party?
“Where Angels fear to tread”, I’ve heard a lot of dissonant, semi-subversive things lately from “Fringe” right wing sources, Scott Frito even went as far as stating that “Revolution may become necessary”.
Is that your’ opinion, Stripe? Could several 9-11 type incidents occur at the hands of the GOP?
Assassination of who? By whom?