Submitted by Mark W. Glenn(United States), Sep 25, 2002 at 18:22
I commend Daniel Pipes and John Fonte for their research, clarity and, in general, right-thinking. What they present is eye-popping.
Still, I think I must quibble with some of Mr. Fonte's terminology. He repeatedly contrasts "liberal democratic" with "transnational progressive." It is his use of various forms of "liberal" and "democratic" that will mislead many readers. I assume he is referring to classical liberalism, and to democratic, or democrat in a general sense. Yet the American transnational progressives he quotes are registered in, and can be counted on to support, the Democratic Party. They are not registered in, nor will support, the Republican Party. American transnational progressives consider themselves to be liberal. They do not consider themselves to be conservative.
If you want up-to-date terminology that contrasts reliably with "transnational progressive," say "conservative Republican." That gets it right.
John Fonte rightly points out that trans-national progressivism follows in the footsteps of National Socialism and Communism. In the 20th century there has been considerable overlap between the socialism, communism circle, and American liberalism, Democratic Party circle. Sad to say, but true. The same overlap does not exist with "conservative Republican."
I did not find these articles in the N.Y. Times; I found them in WorldNetDaily. John may not realize it, but his allies are "conservative republican," not "liberal democrat." It may seem crass to say, but here's the reality. John should find ways to give verbal support to his allies, not his opponents.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.
