October 30, 1997

[Partial transcript]

Chinese Despots--Communists or Fascists?

CALLER: What I wanted to say was: I think that actually China, right now--under Mao they were communist--right now, it seems to me that economically they're not communists, and really their system is much more like a fascist regime.

And any time you say "communist" the idiots in the media are going to think "reactionary." But if we use the term "fascist," and get it to stick, it will really get to them in the media, because they won't know what to do with it. And they feel obliged to froth at the mouth whenever you mention the term "fascist," but with "communist" they call you a reactionary.

KEYES: Two things are true, though. One, we have to pay some attention to what people call themselves. And they call themselves "communist." And they have reaffirmed this every chance they get, for whatever reason.

I agree with you, though, and I have made the point on the show several times, that what they are actually doing is re-inventing despotism to produce a new form. I think of it, in terms of an analytical phrase, as corporate totalitarianism. And I use that phrase, sometimes, because if you think about the phrase "corporate totalitarianism," you will realize that the Communist Chinese aren't the only people who can practice it. And that, in point of fact, one could envisage a kind of--I would call it degradation; some might call it evolution--of our own system that would move in the direction of corporate totalitarianism.

And I would argue that we are in fact seeing signs of that. In which we are dominated by an internationalist, corporate set of interests that gradually eats away and erodes our economic freedoms, our control over our economic resources, over our schools, and over our lives. And in exchange for this we get a certain kind of promise of economic stability--sometimes honored in the breach--so long as we give up our political freedom.

That is what the Communist Chinese now represent. This guy (Ziang) coming over here saying: "Well, we gotta do this; to keep up our 'opening.'" What does their opening mean? Their adoption of the corporate style, in their economic organization; that's what it means. But to get that, they are saying "we have to have political repression." That combination of corporatism and political repression, that I call "corporate totalitarianism," seems to be an emerging temptation for the world, right now. And I don't think it is confined to the Communist Chinese leadership.

CALLER: I agree with everything you say. I just think that, from a political perspective, they are like the fascists. And if we can get that to stick . . .

KEYES: Well, in some ways it might be a little misleading. Because fascism was a particular phenomenon. You are absolutely right; I don't disagree with anything you are saying, in terms a lot of the characteristics of these communist despots. But they call themselves "communists"; they have that heritage; and one important element that is there, that was kind of absent in fascism, is their hatred of religion. And that hatred of religion harks back to their roots in Marxist-Leninism, and that whole materialistic, historicist tradition of communism.

And Bill Clinton, himself--that's what I was trying to point out today--he speaks from that tradition. Isn't that sad? We have a president who speaks the language of the Marxists.

. . .

Republican Puppy-Dogs

CALLER: I wanted to ask you about your position on what the Congress should do regarding Bill Clinton. If I were a political cartoonist, I would draw a cartoon, and here's what it would look like. There would be two precipices, with a deep gorge in between. And Clinton is standing on one precipice, with a really juicy bone. And the bone is labeled "scandal." And a bunch of puppy dogs on the other side, representing the Republican Congress, madly trying to get the bones, and falling over themselves and thereby destroying themselves politically, trying to get at this bone.

I just think that they need to be more snake-like. They need to creep up and get him, quickly. Because to have all these open showings, when they can't actually get the bone, is just damaging them.

KEYES: But don't you think part of the problem is that they don't understand what the bone is? The bone is not "scandal"; the bone is not "get Clinton," "embarrass Clinton," "hurt Clinton," "build ourselves up politically," "tear down Gore."

They have been pursuing the bone of political advantage out of all of this. And that's the wrong bone. The bone they should be pursuing is the bone of truth, and the interests of the American people; it should be all that's on their mind. And if this guy has done things that are hurtful to our security, they should single-mindedly pursue the truth about that until they get it. Not for political reasons; not to hurt him; not to hurt Gore; not to gain political advantage--but to get the truth for the American people.

CALLER: I agree with that. I do think, from a political perspective, though, it's important how they go about trying to get at the truth.

KEYES: But first you have to decide that that's what you want. I deeply believe that they don't care about the truth. They have shown no signs, whatsoever. (Not) Thompson; nobody, really, cares about getting at the truth. It's all been calculation, and maneuvering, and game-playing for purposes of political ambition and show. A single-minded concern for the truth has, I think, only been in evidence from one guy up there, that I see, and that's Dan Burton. And, of course, he's been pilloried for it. But I think he is the only one who shows that glimmer of a sense that this is not about politics; it's not about gestures; it's not about getting Clinton--it's about trying to find out what really happened, and how it affects the interests of the American people.

I mean, this guy is making critical security decisions, about the Chinese, when it is possible that he's a paid agent of the Chinese Communist despots. Think about that! We need the truth about that; we need it desperately, given the kind of judgments he is making.