OK, Ann Coulter, hate speech is not protected, and it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask you to stop speaking when all that comes out of your mouth is hate. And in case you were wondering, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. By the way, just because people are entertained by your attempts at sounding reasonable doesn't mean that you actually construct anything resembling a cogent argument.

From The International Herald Tribune:

The return of Authoritarian Capitalists

By Azar Gat
Tribune Media Services

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Today's global liberal democratic order faces a significant challenge from the rise of nondemocratic great powers - the West's old Cold War rivals, China and Russia, now operating under "authoritarian capitalist" rather than Communist regimes.

The category is not new - authoritarian capitalist great powers played a leading role in the international system up until 1945.

But they have been largely absent since then. The liberal democratic camp defeated its authoritarian, Fascist and Communist rivals alike in all of the three major great-power struggles of the 20th century - the two world wars and the Cold War.

It is tempting to trace this outcome to the special traits and intrinsic advantages of liberal democracy. But the reasons for the liberal democracies' victories were different for each type of adversary.

The Soviet Union failed because its economic systems limited it. But the nondemocratic capitalist great powers, Germany and Japan, were defeated in war fundamentally because they were medium-sized countries with limited resource bases.

Thus contingency, not inherent advantages of liberal democracy, played a decisive role in tipping the balance against the non-democratic capitalist powers and in favor of the democracies.

The most decisive element of contingency was the United States.

Because of its continental size, no less than its democratic-capitalist system, the power of the United States consistently surpassed that of the next two strongest states combined throughout the 20th century, and this decisively tilted the global balance of power in favor of whichever side Washington was on.

So if any factor gave the liberal democracies their edge, it was above all the existence of the United States rather than any inherent advantage. In fact, had it not been for the United States, liberal democracy may well have lost the great struggles of the 20th century.

This is a sobering thought that is often overlooked in studies of the spread of democracy in the 20th century, and it makes the world today appear much more contingent and tenuous than linear theories of development suggest.

This is especially true in light of the recent emergence of nondemocratic powers, above all booming, authoritarian, capitalist China. Russia, too, is retreating from its post-Communist liberalism and assuming an increasingly authoritarian character as its economic clout grows.

Some believe these countries could ultimately become liberal democracies through a combination of internal development, increasing affluence and outside influence.

Alternatively, they may have enough weight to create a new non-democratic but economically advanced Second World. They could establish a powerful authoritarian-capitalist order that allies political elites, industrialists and the military; that is nationalist in orientation; and that participates in the global economy on its own terms, as imperial Germany and imperial Japan did.

By shifting from Communist command economy to capitalism, China and Russia have switched to a far more efficient brand of authoritarianism. Although the rise of these authoritarian capitalist great powers would not necessarily lead to a non-democratic hegemony or war, it might imply that the near-total dominance of liberal democracy since the Soviet Union's collapse will be short-lived and that a universal "democratic peace" is still far off.

Beijing and Moscow and their future followers might well become antagonists of the democratic countries - with all the potential for insecurity and conflict that this entails - while holding considerably more power than any of the democracies' past rivals ever did by virtue of being both large and capitalist.

The most important counterweight remains the United States. For all the criticism leveled against it, the United States and its alliance with Europe stands as the single most important hope for the future of liberal democracy.

As it was during the 20th century, the United States remains the greatest guarantee that liberal democracy will not be thrown on the defensive and relegated to a vulnerable position on the periphery of the international system.

Azar Gat is professor of national security at Tel Aviv University and the author of "War in Human Civilization." A longer version of this article appears in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs.

Something to be aware of when reading op-ed pieces that are intentional propaganda. This is taken from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

fascism

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism . . . [is] differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.


From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

"The growth of democratic ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes. Forerunners of fascism . . . played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property."

Propaganda artists will call liberals the opposite of conservative, when in fact the opposite of liberalism is totalitarianism. And liberal does not mean "any one who's left-of-center." For there are plenty of left-wing totalitarians that disdain liberalism as well. So, if totalitarians can make "liberalism" a bad word, they indirectly convince everyone that totalitarianism is a good idea. These totalitarians will call people who advocate the state "progressives" or "liberals" to make it look like they do not advocate such, when in fact people who advocate a big state can advocate it for conserving culture as well as changing it; there are big-State progressives and no-Sate progressives. There are also liberals who want no-state: libertarians. Here in American, the most prevalent form of this "anti-liberal/pro-totalitarianism" effort hides under the guise of "conservatism." It would not be very appealing for these people to claim to be a totalitarians, so they steal the label "conservative" for themselves because, conveniently, to be conservative OR totalitarian is to not be liberal. So by focusing on "not liberal" they can deceive people that they are merely conservatives. However, although these totalitarians are certainly conservative, they are not the conservatives who wish to abolish the State, these totalitarians are more wholly accurately called fascists - they are totalitarian capitalists who just happen to also want to conserve the status quo. Fascists are just as interested in a big state, but for the purpose of protecting capitalist order and progressing toward greater militarism, and they currently hide in the Republican Party (as only a part of it, admittedly). People who want to abolish the State are also interested in abolishing the organized national military as well. These fascists propaganda artists are conveniently only critical of the State when the State advocates liberalism, but they have no problem justifying a military budget that is multiple times bigger than all of the budgets combined of nations hostile to the United States.

Fascism is alive and well in America, I just wish people would get over their belief that fascism died with the fall of the World War II Axis. It merely went underground and undercover.