Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Brad Sallows]

>http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/morte/2008/01/the-definitive-critique-of-lib.php

The best part of the review is the opening: "So this was a stupid idea. Obviously I've left myself open to criticism since I admit outright that I haven't read the book."    Then the author commences to review interviews and other reviews, rather than the book directly.  What that does is lead him to criticize the mischaracterizations of others and his own false or incomplete inferences; aka GIGO.  The author believes that "fascism is a style of totalitarianism": yes, if "totalitarianism" is as originally understood by Mussolini and described by Goldberg early in the book, not the novel modern interpretation of the word (which assumes a number of ill attributes which don't necessarily have to be a significant part of a totalitarian, or unified, state).  Likewise, the author wishes to refute the thesis by drawing on concensus that fascism is antithetical to liberalism: this is true if "liberalism" means "classical liberalism", and untrue if it means "modern American liberalism".  Goldberg's thesis is that modern American progressivism/liberalism springs from the same root as fascism, that in the formative years of both there was cross-fertilization, and that the former is still faithful to the core idea of fascism: unity of purpose of all the social classes of the state under the guidance of the leader/elite, without the classless state sought by communists.  There is nothing historically controversial about the first two parts, and it is not difficult to see in the policies of modern progressives the core idea: that the governing class should do what is best for all, especially if the rest can not see the correctness of it, and that no-one should be allowed to stand apart.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

This one is worse: three and a half opening paragraphs of valueless invective before the usual critical error: that modern liberalism can't be fascism because fascism is anti-liberal, with no indication of which understanding (definition) of liberalism must be applied to make the latter true.  I suppose this is what happens when people with a tarnished political inheritance resort to Doublespeak to conceal the rotten branches of the family tree - whole generations form garbage conclusions from invalid premises.

If there are still readers here who don't understand this - the difference between classical liberalism and modern American liberalism, and why fascism is antithetical to the former and related to the latter - read this review by Jerry Pournelle linked by Goldberg at NRO.

Goldberg's book isn't an academic work intended for peer review, but it is accurate enough in its history[,] and the contention that modern American liberalism is a variation of fascism is sound.  The negative reviews mainly seem to be the usual indignation and denials that fascism belongs on the political left and [that] its characteristics are shared by other doctrines of the political left.

 

[Redeye]

Another one - from the conservative POV - that Goldberg's casual coincidences are as common to the right as the left is the crux of this rather well presented review: http://amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/

There's also this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

There's also this amusing polemic about it: http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2008/01/liberal-fascism.html

The problem is the quotemining.  At one point in the book, Goldberg suggests that the New York Times lauded Mussolini for example.  Except that not only did he truncate the quote (at the part where the glorious review of the guy turned negative, of course), but it wasn't actually the NYT the produced the piece, it was a supplement from elsewhere.  He repeated this trick throughout the book to support his rather flimsy and silly case.

It's best described as selectively choosing some coincidences and ignoring a need for causation.  Of course, since Goldberg's book was intended for a sympathetic audience that would agree with whatever he might say, that's hardly surprising.

 

[Redeye]

Here's the quotemining example to which I was referring.  Turns out MMFA has a bit on it because Glenn Beck did the same thing:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102100001

Here's one of my favourite bits from the book: 

"Nazi attitudes toward homosexuality are also a source of confusion. While it is true that some homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, it is also the case that the early Nazi Party and the constellation of Pan-German organizations in its orbit were rife with homosexuals. It’s well-known, for example, that Ernst Rohm, the head of the SA and his coterie were homosexuals, and openly so."  P.378

Funny enough, Hitler wasn't really much of a part of Drexler's earlier NSDAP - he didn't create the party.  And interestingly, Goldberg seems to forget the fate that Rohm and "his coterie" met on the Night of the Long Knives, orchestrated by Hitler.  Hitler despised Rohm for a number of reasons, including his homosexuality, and the socialist bent of the Sturmabteilung which he felt didn't help his cause.

I don't recall that appearing in the book at all, I'd have to get it from the library again to check, but I do remember reading that section and laughing at how it was excised from historical context so effectively.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This "rather well presented review" (which also opens as a tirade rather than a review) does not support the contention that "casual coincidences are as common to the right as the left".  Of the four examples given - "both assail communism, exaggerate security threats, rationalize wars of aggression, and uphold nationalism ... and its symbols", the latter three are bread-and-butter for nearly every government: that government will exaggerate its crises to attain its own ends, that it will rationalize wars (and other mistakes) of its own making, and that it will appeal to nationalism.  The first is bread-and-butter for nearly every government which does not consider itself to be communist or a client of a communist state.

That is the same error commonly made by people in the quest to level "fascism" as a charge against Bush, or Harper, or candidates and parties of the political right in general.  "Look, patriotism! Fascists!"  "Look, glorification of the military! Fascists!"  "Look, a law-and-order bill in the legislature! Fascists!".

Taken apart, any one characteristic is likely to be shared by many systems of governments; taken together, there are always going to be a number of characteristics which are part and parcel of government in general.

Critically, it is not whether modern liberalism and fascism overlap on a point of policy (outcome); it is that they overlap on the path to the destination.  Bramwell, for example, picks up the particular example of healthy living.  But Goldberg's point - missed by Bramwell - is not that modern progressivism is fascism because they both happen to share that policy; it is that modern progressivism approaches the end state on the same vector as fascism: everyone must be compelled to submit to the people's will, with the people's will being whatever the well-meaning people in charge say it is (because they are well-meaning and could never get it wrong).

Bramwell's second point is to try to undo the argument that liberalism (late 20th c progressivism) is a descendant of early 20th c progressivism (or fascism), by arguing that because the egregious mistakes have been laid aside, the chain is broken.  That doesn't seem to apply to any other political party, system of government, religion, or social system, and modern liberalism occupies no preferred position that would make it an exception.  The history of the evolution of the political principles and policies is clear enough.  The gap between pre-WWII fascism and modern progressivism is just the interruption caused by Allied victory in WWII and revulsion at the worst excesses of the Nazis, not a complete severing.

And this statement is simply ludicrous in light of the way modern American liberals have been behaving lately: "For example, borrowing heavily from the enthusiasts at the Claremont Institute, Goldberg thinks it significant that progressive intellectuals scorned individual rights and the Declaration of Independence. Well, liberals these days do not. "

Bramwell's third attempt at rebuttal might be summarized by his statement: "The idea that liberals suffer from a “totalitarian temptation” is in any case without merit. "

"Totalitarian" simply expresses the idea of the unity and overarching authority of the state, with no-one allowed to stand apart.  Really, how far is it necessary to look to find a modern progressive initiative which fits that description without falling within the broadly recognized core functions of the state (security, administration of justice)?

 

[Brad Sallows]

This one is not really a review of the book, and not really a rebuttal of any particular point of Goldberg's.  It is mainly an acknowledgement of some of the salient points of the political history, interspersed with whinging about the unfairness of Goldberg's relative lack of attention to fascistic events on the political right (in the particular manifestation of Republican presidential administrations).  But Oshinsky, like Bramwell, chooses to touch on a handful of things that politicians everywhere do: promise a chicken for every pot; pose for photo ops.

Mainly, Oshinsky seems to be put out by the idea that the "f" word should revert to its proper meaning.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That third review makes one useful point at the end: "Because you know you've Hit It Big Time when your words resonate with those ideologically disposed to agree with them."

I bought and read the book a few months ago, but I did indeed have an ideological predisposition to agree, so I was curious to learn whether I was on the correct track.

My understanding of political history and the behaviour of modern progressives over the past decade (in Canada and the US) led me to conclude (on a line of thought initiated by all the "f" bombs being dropped) a number of years ago that if fascism came to pass, it would be at the hands of progressives (Democrats in the US, NDP and perhaps Liberals here in Canada).

I wrote in this thread: "The reason fascism and communism and socialism belong together is that they are all doctrines which emphasize the collective over the individual.  Once that is done, it's really not hard for adherents to find excuses to do almost anything to one person - or several - in the name of many.  Deride it as "slippery slope" you properly may - it's not self-evident that disaster must follow misstep - but it's a slope we've been down several times in the past and the forces of social gravity don't seem to have lessened."

And here: "...just as the meaning of "liberalism" has migrated, so evidently has the meaning of "socialism".  If you accuse a self-identified Canadian socialist of being "communist" or "Stalinist" or "fascist" or "Nazi" or "Maoist" or "Leninist" etc, the first thing he'll do is energetically distance himself from the tyrannical statists by renouncing the Motherland/Fatherland glory trip, the militarism, the "breaking of eggs" (by the millions and tens of millions), and the state ownership, and continue by preening over social welfare programs and policies (including taxation and unionization) designed to reduce wealth and income imbalances, help the needy, and generally give the state a huge involvement in economic outcomes.  His intentions are noble, you see.  How could that possibly be wrong, or go wrong?

Sometimes you can corner a socialist into defending communism, and the morally defensible shred of excuse will be that communism has never really been tried.  By definition, I suppose it hasn't.  But then I look at the list of "isms" that have been tried, and ask myself if that was the original destination or if someone got lost during the search for something else because, well, it just got so hard without bending a few moral straightedges here and there.  A socialist, were there such a thing, is probably harmless; but, socialists have an alarming habit of turning out to be an intermediate developmental stage on the way to something else."

"Progressive" can be substituted for "socialist", and "fascist" for "communist" without compromising the meaning.  And those reflect Goldberg's thesis: modern progressives are not Nazis or even scrupulously orthodox observant fascists in the Italian tradition, but they follow the same path.  Given enough setbacks and frustrations, I do not see why they will be more restrained than predecessors.  We should expect them not to repeat mistakes (eg. eugenics), but we are fools if we do not expect them to make equally grave new ones.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I do not see any point to adding to the discussion more reviews which are not reviews, or counterarguments which are essentially polemical objections.  I understand the basic objection most of these authors have, and I think I can summarize it with many fewer paragraphs than they use.

"Fascism" is a tainted word because of its association with Nazism.  It not for the latter (which was really a bewildering irrational grab bag of political ideas sewn together like Frankenstein's monster), fascism might occupy a respectable position among political systems - little that Mussolini or Franco did or modern fascists such as Chavez in Venezuela do is irretrievably disreputable when measured against the world in general.

Stalin used it to set apart those with whom he disagreed on the (mainly extreme) left.  This has misled most people to assume that fascism is of the right, instead of what it really is: something else on the left.  People who object in general to the right use it to smear the right (and many no longer have the courtesy to reserve it for use against only the extreme right).

Because it has become such a pejorative, progressives object to restoring "fascism" to the left side.  Essentially, it goes like this: "We know those people near us were bad, and we tried to slander you with it; but can't we all just get along and forget about it now instead of finding fault?"  At the same time, they wish everyone to believe that fascism is not a destination further down the path they have chosen.


Anything new which isn't really a rehash of the above might be welcome to add to discussion.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
... "The reason fascism and communism and socialism belong together is that they are all doctrines which emphasize the collective over the individual.  Once that is done, it's really not hard for adherents to find excuses to do almost anything to one person - or several - in the name of many.  Deride it as "slippery slope" you properly may - it's not self-evident that disaster must follow misstep - but it's a slope we've been down several times in the past and the forces of social gravity don't seem to have lessened."
...

Absolutely correct! The opposite of liberal is illiberal and all collectivists and statists - Dippers and Greens and many Liberals, too, in Canada, Democrats in the US, Labour in the UK and socialists, however benign, everywhere - are, without a single exception, illiberals, just like communists and fascists in all their various guises. They all want to expropriate my property and redistribute it to someone else because they know, better than I, how to make the best use of my brains and labour.

There are some conservatives out there - some are religious and others are Confucian; I have some respect for the principled beliefs of the latter group but the former, religiously based conservatives, are a problem for me because they, too, want to place something above the conscience of the individual. Most modern religious conservatives are busybodies who want to interfere with my freedom in order to force me to conform to their view of their god's will.

 

[Redeye]

Brad - you're someone on to something - I think.  Fascism as a loaded term in a way, a pejorative.  Part of the problem stems from trying to fit it on a linear spectrum where it isn't.  And a rise comes out of those tarred with the term because of what it's been associated with.  That, I think, was probably what Goldberg was aiming for, rather than making any particularly sound arguments.

Mr. Campbell, however, goes to an extreme perhaps - from my POV anyhow.  I - and most people I know who tend to track the same thoughts as me (which tend to lie somewhat in the centre, perhaps slightly left of it) don't want to expropriate anything, except, that is, a share of the costs of things that require collective action to build.  Pure individualism, the academic construction of pure classical liberalism, doesn't seem to work in my view, and if it did, our species isn't likely to have dreamed up things like governments to seek to accomplish those ends.

I do like the parallel to religious conservatives, and the comparison is apt and well made, something I'd implicitly accepted but never really understood.  They, too, are determined to expropriate wealth, to redistribute it largely to themselves, essentially.  It is for that reason I don't understand those folks.  They're the type of people who will claim to be free thinkers who've never actually critically considered their religion, for example.

I guess where it really gets me, though, is the abject hypocrisy of the right, in particular south of our border, who see nothing wrong with continuing to borrow against the wealth of future generations to pursue things with don't actually benefit society as a whole - that is, they're collectivists right up to the point of doing anything to the benefit of the collective, you might say.  It is, like Mr. Campbell's last paragraph, perplexing to to me that "rugged individualists" want a "small government" that still will find the time and resources to interfere in people's private reproductive decisions, for exmaple.  It's still richer when they're exposed as hypocrites on the matter, like Rick "frothy" Santorum.

 

[Kirkhill]

I do like the parallel to religious conservatives, and the comparison is apt and well made, something I'd implicitly accepted but never really understood.  They, too, are determined to expropriate wealth, to redistribute it largely to themselves, essentially.  It is for that reason I don't understand those folks.  They're the type of people who will claim to be free thinkers who've never actually critically considered their religion, for example.

Redeye, why should it come as a surprise to you that there is a connection between religiosity and socialism when the entire socialist project grew out of the work of well meaning Protestants - Methodists amongst others - in Manchester, the Black Country and the Lowlands of Scotland.  Marx went to Manchester to study the Chartists, the Levellers, the Rochdale Co-Ops and all the other related institutions associated with creating Jerusalem among these dark, satanic mills.

Personally I ascribe the overlap between the temperaments to explain the ease with which the Quebec Clergy (to include orphanage and old folks home attendants, nurses and teachers) adjusted to and accomodated the shift from a Church led society to a "Secular" society during the Quiet Revolution.  There was no necessity for the individual to challenge their principles with respect to their relationship to society at large and their neighbours.  All they did was replace a Pope based hierarchy with a Premier based hierarchy.  They still expected manna to flow downwards.  Their role was to distribute manna and have some of it stick to their fingers in the process.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Expropriation at unreasonable levels is a concern, but a greater worry is social engineering.  I support the promulgation of information, including at public expense - ParticipAction advertising, anti-smoking public service advertising, labelling on prepared food packaging - but once the citizen has the information and elects to continue with the harmful behaviour, the involvement of the state must end there.  If people want to smoke and eat fatty foods and they become a mounting expense to the health care system, tough sh!t: those who want to provide a public charity, expropriate the funds, and discourage or outright forbid alternatives outside the system may not use it as an excuse to meddle just because their scheme isn't working out as they thought it should - not unless all the harmful behaviours in which I am uninterested are equally forbidden as the ones in which I indulge.  It is that meddlesome instinct of progressives to treat people like some sort of project to be perfected which is the totalitarian impetus.

The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.

The spending of future generations' wealth south of the border goes right across the political divide.  But it seems that one party is seriously trying to cut that spending while another undertook recent initiatives to remarkably raise it.  And as I noted in another thread, the historical revenue and expense trends show that it is foremost a spending problem.  What is basically happening is that Democrats are following an opposite strategy to "starve the beast" which is "stuff the beast".  They have tied a weight of publicly funded benefits around the neck of government too large to fund, are now using that as an excuse to drive up taxation, and then - since the taxation isn't realistically going to be anywhere near enough - will inflate away the debt to achieve two aims: reduce the cost of servicing debt (they probably think they will get close to an operating balance, but I doubt they will), and wipe out the value of the private holdings of most of the middle class to make it all but impossible for them to resist public programs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.
...

I have no 'expropriation' of property problems with religious conservatives. I find them intrusive. They want to intrude on my privacy by using the state to impose their beliefs on others. Doesn't matter if they are conservative Christians, or conservative Jews or conservative Buddhists: they all want us to conduct our public and private lives in accordance with what they think their gods want. Buysbodies.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have no 'expropriation' of property problems with religious conservatives. I find them intrusive. They want to intrude on my privacy by using the state to impose their beliefs on others. Doesn't matter if they are conservative Christians, or conservative Jews or conservative Buddhists: they all want us to conduct our public and private lives in accordance with what they think their gods want. Buysbodies.

But why do they want to improve you ERC - not that you need to be, or could be improved  ;D - is it perhaps, that like the victims of the NKVD and the Stasi (or the Inquisition) they fear collective punishment?  Your error will invite wrath on their heads? Or will deny them Jerusalem here on Earth?

 

[a_majoor]

Religious or social conservatives are very much like their "progressive" brethren; they know the TRUTH and wish for you to partake of it. If you are not interested then they will enlist the power of the State to ensure that you do partake (the Church not being so much in the enforcement business these days).

The primary difference between a Religious/social conservative is they seek justification in their religious beliefs, where a Progressive seeks justification in a secular belief system such as Marxism or Green environmentalism. Frankly, the idea that religious or social "conservatives" should be in the same tent as fiscal conservatives, libertarians or other followers of Classical Liberal thought is wrong and counterproductive, fortunately the actual influence of religious conservatives has never been as great as alarmist press would have us believe and their peak was probably back in the 1980's.

I think the main reason they do wish to sit in the Conservative tent is because classical liberal thought is against social engineering and most religious and social conservatives see this as the best place to fight against the sort of social engineering they see/fear Progressives deploying whenever they have the chance. The fact they wish to do some social engineering of their own is one of those little ironies which vex our lives....

 

[Redeye]

Expropriation at unreasonable levels is a concern, but a greater worry is social engineering.  I support the promulgation of information, including at public expense - ParticipAction advertising, anti-smoking public service advertising, labelling on prepared food packaging - but once the citizen has the information and elects to continue with the harmful behaviour, the involvement of the state must end there.  If people want to smoke and eat fatty foods and they become a mounting expense to the health care system, tough sh!t: those who want to provide a public charity, expropriate the funds, and discourage or outright forbid alternatives outside the system may not use it as an excuse to meddle just because their scheme isn't working out as they thought it should - not unless all the harmful behaviours in which I am uninterested are equally forbidden as the ones in which I indulge.  It is that meddlesome instinct of progressives to treat people like some sort of project to be perfected which is the totalitarian impetus.

Generally speaking, I agree.  But I have no problem with the state creating potent incentives and disincentives to behaviours which ultimately cost us all in the long run.  Hence we heavily tax alcohol and tobacco.  I'd love to see some mechanism to further encourage healthier eating and more active lifestyles, but there is indeed a balance that has to be struck.  Some of it could be done through things like expanding tax credits for fitness programs further (and expand them to all, not just children).  Ultimately, if someone wants to eat nothing but crap and smoke and drink themselves into an early grave, there's only so much it's reasonable for the state to try to do.

The notion that religious conservatives are determined to expropriate wealth for themselves bemuses me.  Most religious conservatives seem to take their duty to give to others of their wealth and time seriously.

Are you serious?  Most of the evangelical set is led by people who are very efficient at converting other people's wealth into their own.  How much money to people like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen rake in?  What about the 700 Club set?  They give of their time, perhaps, but they do it because they just happen to become rich in the process.  There's a reason they have the money to funnel into PACs and the like, and to hold their own events to try to influence the political process.  Even to the extent that they collect "charitable donations", those donations are often going to recruiting new donors and supporting their employees.

The spending of future generations' wealth south of the border goes right across the political divide.  But it seems that one party is seriously trying to cut that spending while another undertook recent initiatives to remarkably raise it.

Sorry, which party is seriously trying to cut spending?  Don't say the Republicans, or I'll spit this mouthful of coffee all over my keyboard.

And as I noted in another thread, the historical revenue and expense trends show that it is foremost a spending problem.  What is basically happening is that Democrats are following an opposite strategy to "starve the beast" which is "stuff the beast".  They have tied a weight of publicly funded benefits around the neck of government too large to fund, are now using that as an excuse to drive up taxation, and then - since the taxation isn't realistically going to be anywhere near enough - will inflate away the debt to achieve two aims: reduce the cost of servicing debt (they probably think they will get close to an operating balance, but I doubt they will), and wipe out the value of the private holdings of most of the middle class to make it all but impossible for them to resist public programs.

I've heard this line of reasoning before, and yet, I don't really see that being the case.  What it appears to me is that the Republicans - in particular, their wealthy corporatist backers - see the writing on the wall - that the ship of state in the USA is sinking fast, and they're trying to grab whatever they can.  Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with, and it was mainly from borrowing against future revenues to fund things that were really not beneficial at all to anyone to do it - most of the benefit accrued to those corporatists.  The pervasive cult of personality the GOP has built around Ronald Reagan in particular is the clearest symptom of this disease.

I don't know that there are any good answers - and it's made worse by the fact that the GOP know they have no incentive to do anything to fix the situation because they want things to be bad going into the election campaign next year where they can blame it all on the Democrats - and sadly, the largely politically illiterate electorate may just believe them.

 

[a_majoor]

Let's not forget it was primarily Republican policies that have created most of the massive debt that the USA is grappling with

Which party captured the legislature (which creates and passes money bills) and started the spending spree in 2006?

Which party controlled the House, the Senate and the Administration starting in 2008?

Which party created the Community Reinvestment Act? Which party does US Rep Barney Frank (who opposed regulating Fannie Mae in 2006, saw no impending problems and publicly announced he was "willing to throw the dice" rather than address the then growing mortgage problems) belong to? Which party opposes any attempts to reform entitlement spending?

Interested readers can compare these answers to the above quote and draw their own conclusions......

 

[Redeye]

Which party captured the legislature (which creates and passes money bills) and started the spending spree in 2006?

Which party controlled the House, the Senate and the Administration starting in 2008?

When did the US national debt start spiralling out of control?  Hint: A long time before 2006. About 26 years before with the election of a certain figure.

Which Administrations caused the largest surges thereof?  Hint: Rhymes with "Reagan" & "Bush".  Significantly, both administrations presided over tax cuts that impacted the revenue base, the other side of the deficit equation.

Which party created the Community Reinvestment Act? Which party does US Rep Barney Frank (who opposed regulating Fannie Mae in 2006, saw no impending problems and publicly announced he was "willing to throw the dice" rather than address the then growing mortgage problems) belong to? Which party opposes any attempts to reform entitlement spending?

Yes, Democrats and Republicans both contributed to the mess, and both failed to see the housing bubble because at the time it was basically inconceivable to anyone that there was any reason to be worried about house prices.  They were horribly wrong - but so was almost everyone.  Some time check out the movie "Inside Job" which is a fairly good documentary on how that particular mess unfolded.

Interested readers can compare these answers to the above quote and draw their own conclusions......

Sure.  That no hands are clean is the realistic conclusion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You gentlemen inhabit a different reality than I.  Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be the most persistent proselytizers, but they go door-to-door on their own.  I have co-workers, friends, acquaintances, and family members who range from "liberal" Christian to fundamental, and in my discussions with them none seem inclined to use the power of the state.  They might talk my ear off if I invited them, but aside from a couple of keystone issues - abortion being one, and it crosses religious boundaries into irreligious philosophies - there simply isn't a fascist impulse among them.  They believe for the most part that God's justice is God's to dispense, not theirs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Are you serious?  Most of the evangelical set is led by people who are very efficient at converting other people's wealth into their own.

Expropriation is when the state takes something from you to keep or transfer to someone else.  The evangelical set may be salesmen and con artists but they are not - I'll refrain from an absolute denial in case there are some teeny tiny exceptions somewhere - expropriators.