I woke up this morning only to discover that misunderstandings abound!

And some of them come close to touching upon things and concepts near and dear to the heart of this blog.

Particularly startling were some academic remarks (pointed to by Glenn Reynolds) and noted by Juan Non-Volokh:

...Brain Leiter offers this "somewhat tangential comment":

in every society of which I'm aware the vast majority of the preeminent academic figures were, in general, cowards when it came to their own regimes, and apologists for what later generations would see clearly as inhumanity and illegality. This was clear in Germany in the 1930s, as it was in America in the 1950s. There is no reason to think the United States today is any different. (Emphases in original).

While this statement might not equate Nazi Germany with the current regime, it certainly suggests an equivalence between those who failed to oppose Nazism, those who failed to oppose McCarthyism, and those who do not oppose the Bush Administration. Haven't we had enough of these sorts of comparisons?

In a comment last night, libertarianism came so precariously close to being unfairly compared to Roman gladiatorial events that I had to speak up in its defense. (And I mean in libertarianism's defense!) Here's the relevant portion of the comment:

The "let the idiots kill themselves" approach outlined here is most definitely "Classical" - in that fine tradition of gladiatorial entertainments that involved the "weak" or "foolish" being mauled to the delight of the crowd.

I fail to see the relevance of gladiatorial entertainment -- which was opposed by many thinking Romans at the time. (Pliny, Seneca, Cicero -- to name three -- all complained.) Throwing innocent people into an arena for entertainment is indefensible by any moral standard that I know of, classical or modern. But even granting for the sake of argument that the Romans were all a bunch of bloodthirsty and sadistic bastards, how does that indict the libertarian view of leaving people alone?

This blog engages in satire, and I enjoy poking fun at modern political and sexual problems, with occasional glimpses from a distant lens.

I'm feeling especially touchy right now because (as Juan Non-Volokh also reports) the same guy (Professor Leiter) is ominously shifting the geographical basis of the "fascist" comparison from Germany to Italy:

There is nothing unreasonable, plainly, in worrying that the Bush Administration and its policies represent the coming of fascism in the above sense to the American landscape (mainstream economists, like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong, have documented the merger of state and corporate power during the Bush years at length)--but it is perhaps more fascism of the Italian, not Nazi, variety, since it has no racial component.

Seriously, though, this really makes me paranoid, because Italy is, like really close to Rome! And Rome was, well, a long time ago, it was, um, like, the center of the Roman empire! Thus I'm concerned that because some of these guys who want to shift the focus away from Germany (perhaps, understandably, to avoid confusion because of German-sounding names) that might cause people to think that my blog is (gasp!) fascist oriented!

It doesn't help me much that Benito Mussolini fancied himself to be a sort of modern avatar/revivalist of ancient Rome, does it?

So now I have to deny any connection between fascist Italy and this blog, in addition to denying that I support the things that ancient Rome supported, and it all gets really complicated!

Too much denial to have to face first thing in the morning.

I should probably take back many of the things I've said, but I don't know where to begin.

I should probably start by apologizing for fascism. I also apologize for the Roman games. For slavery too. And for denial! I'm also sorry for everything Bush did which made people mad. Like blowing up the Twin Towers. And invading Afghanistan and Iraq and stuff. And I apologize for attempting to make light of Mussolini. (Twice!)

Certain things go too far, even in humor.

(The darker side of my brain will probably think of other, lighter things eventually....)

UPDATE: As Harvey at IMAO reminded me, I forgot to apologize for lynching. No excuse, really. I just forgot. I'm sorry!

UPDATE: Drilling deeper into Professor Leiter's mental cavities, Juan Non-Volokh (with the help of reader Steven Hamori), finds evidence that the professor might be confused about fascism.

Leiter (like many contemporary commentators and perhaps the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary as well) is confused about the definition of fascism, and misinterprets the oft-repeated Mussolini/Gentile quote that "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

MORE: Clayton Cramer cites Mussolini on collectivism following which he asks a question:

If the nineteenth was the century of the individual (Liberalism means individualism) it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State.

Is there anything that more clearly identifies where American conservatism and libertarianism differs from Fascism--and where Fascism is most clearly a form of progressivism?