by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was recently speaking to a friend and fellow conservative. The conversation invariably turned to a discussion of “The One”. My friend was complaining of what a fascist dictator Obama is becoming. I had to laugh knowing that Obama has always been a fascist and it’s just becoming more obvious now. He spoke as if this were the first time in American history we have a president that fancies himself a dictator or King.
I gave my friend a quick synopsis of King Andrew Jackson. You may link to it here. It was as if he hadn’t heard this, as if it were news to him, and he, I regard as someone who is a fairly well-rounded and knowledgeable conservative. He did understand, and I agree, that fascism is a product of the left, not the right as most are taught. The left, the progressives, like fascists are enamored with, and in fact worship the power and expansion of the state and absolute control of it.
There have actually been several “want to be” fascist leaders in America before the present. As bad as they all were, in my opinion, there has been none worse than president Thomas Woodrow Wilson, our 28th.
Historian Walter McDougall wrote that Wilson, “loved, craved and in a sense, glorified power”.
Wilson said, “I cannot imagine power as something negative and not positive. No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.” He went on to say, “government does whatever experience permits or that the times demand” and, “the president is at liberty both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set a limit.”
Progressives, statists like Wilson are always arguing that the “Times”, not the Constitution, dictate government policy. He believed that the country’s leaders are not servants of its citizens but masters. He alleged that a, “true leader uses the masses of people like tools. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.” Humility was not one of Wilson’s attributes.
Another trait of all dictatorial advocates is that is that they abhor dissent. They won’t accept and frankly don’t understand any disagreement of their brilliance. For example, upon entering World War I Wilson exclaimed of antiwar protesters, “Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way.” Just imagine the rancor of the left leaning press if George Bush had the stones to stand up and say something like that.
Wilson, as all progressives, claimed to have a reverence for America’s founders and the original documents until, of course, their beliefs clash with said founders. Then it is always the same excuse not to adhere to the founders’ original intent. The “Times” again, they say, dictate all actions.
Wilson exclaimed, “While we are followers of Jefferson….You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is one that does as little governing as possible….But that time has passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.” I guess the average American just can’t handle freedom.
Now have you ever noticed that most wars break out when a progressive is in charge? Just an observation and I’m sure strictly coincidental.
But Woodrow Wilson actually bragged about fighting a war with no national interest at stake as is the law. “There is not a single selfish element, so far as I can see, in the cause we are fighting for.” So according to Wilson we had no national interest, no strategic benefit, no clear and present danger to our involvement in World War I. Is that what he’s saying?
Wilson said of World War I, “As head of a nation participating in the war, the President of the United States would have a seat at the peace table, but… If he remained the representative of a neutral country, he could at best only call through a crack in the door.”
So was Wilson saying he got America into World War I so he could have a seat at the peace table? Over 116,000 died in even more wounded so he could promote his warped view of worldwide collectivism and one world government through his “League of Nations?” He did proudly admit that we had no national interest in the war. I would not like to think this of any man but the more I look, it appears that he did just that.
Wilson’s grand legacy will continue in Part Two.