The protesters in Michigan and Wisconsin that Rachel Maddow has been giving the True Twit Thumbs Up to lately on her TV show like to carry signs that call governors Rick Snyder and Scott Walker fascists, put Hitler mustaches on them, and give interviews that say “This is how Nazi Germany started.”

Hopefully, those aren’t history teachers…

While it might not be particular to fascism to say so, Rachel’s constant harping that tax cuts to business is the same as “spending” on them, certainly displays a totalitarian impulse when it comes to your money—and one that is certainly consistent with fascism.  It assumes that whatever income you get to keep is at the good graces of Big Government.

MADDOW: He is giving it away in the form of $1.8 billion in corporate tax cuts.  He is taking in $1.7 billion in higher taxes from poor people an old people and giving it away, $1.8 billion to businesses!

Giving… not taking.. tomato tomahtoe…

But Rachel keeps sniping that Governor Snyder is giving “tax breaks” to business (as if any sane person had any choice besides lowering the nation’s most repressive business tax rate in a state with the highest unemployment) while “taxing the old and the poor.”

But it’s also true that Rick Snyder wants to spend money on business, and in a way that meets a purely economic definition of fascism—but the primary example is on a project Detroit Democrats are desperate to promote.

First, let’s get this out of the way.  Taking less is not spending.  Taking less is not fascism, either.  The reason the most famous fascist party was called the National Socialist Party is not because it took less money from anyone, or exercised less control on anything.

However, unlike total Marxist socialism, fascism can be content with merely controlling the means of production, sometimes by an amalgam of government and big business.  Today, we give them the sunny name of “public-private partnerships.”  Sometimes it’s called crony capitalism.  I prefer corporate welfare.

A governor who is from the business community, before he makes cuts to education, needs to be able to say, “Look I cut the freebies for my crowd first.”  But Snyder, who originally said in his budget that he was going to “cut” the state’s slush fund for picking winners and losers in the business world to $50 million from the $200 million Jennifer Granholm routinely spent for no results, now tells the Detroit news he may need more.

But perhaps the most controversial—and head scratching—example of this, is the Detroit River International Crossing, or DRIC.  The DRIC is a $5 billion bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, to compete with the privately owned Ambassador Bridge.  (And judging by the new census numbers, Canadians should start calling this the “bridge to nowhere.”)

It is true that the crossing needs an upgrade, but the owner of the Ambassador Bridge wants to build a new span privately. But the governor, egged on by Detroit business roundtable types, is determined to have taxpayers foot the bill.

Partly because the Michigan Department of Transportation wants the $500 million the Canadians have offered to put up– and because of the perverse incentives of government, that money can be used for federal matching grants, which also makes them drool– and because of the usual inflated jobs creation numbers every big government construction project promises, a Republican governor is competing with a private company.  It probably doesn’t hurt that one of the biggest Republican consultants and lobbying firms is advocating for DRIC, either.

Last year, Detroit Democrats loaded up the DRIC legislation with tons of local pork development projects and it was killed in the Republican Senate.  But now, with our “businessman” governor, it’s back.

Obamacare with its mandates to use private insurance and myriad regulatory controls is really more akin to fascism than socialism.  The GM and Chrysler takeovers and screwing over the bondholders by fiat of the Executive smacks of fascism; while things like subsidizing wind farms and electric cars over their competitors are merely flirting with it.

The protesters, however, are not out yelling about anything that meets the real definition of fascism.  I bet most of them LOVE forcing people to pay for wind farms.

Whether cutting education funding is wise or not, it meets no logical definition of fascism.  I’m pretty sure the first thing Hitler did was not decrease the German state’s investment in its schools.  I’m especially confident he did nothing that would make non-state schools increase their competitive advantage vs. the state-funded institutions.

And while a public school system is not fascism (though a national one would make me really uncomfortable, and increasing federal involvement gets us close to the definition) even Republicans seem to want to propose a “one size fits all” standard for kids, rather than increase the choices available to students within the publicly funded system.

Now if the protesters wanted to scream THAT was fascistic… well, they would be wrong, but at least in the ballpark.

So here’s what you can bank on.  Anything the protesters call fascism, isn’t.  Anything Rachel is campaigning for… much more likely to be.

This week’s primary races, in which grassroots conservative candidates had a strong showing, suggest that the political energy is on the Republican side. Yet it is too soon to predict that 2010 will be a replay of 1994, when a voter backlash helped Republicans recapture control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Consider the May 18th showdown for John Murtha’s vacated congressional seat, which was disappointing for Republicans. In some polls, Tim Burns had been ahead of Mark Critz, and Critz’s 7 point win was bound to provoke a good deal of agonized post mortem analysis. But a crucial and sobering fact eluded everybody: PA12 showed that the decisive factor in the big GOP congressional gains of 1994 is missing this year, and will remain so until the party does something to remedy that.

Rush Limbaugh tried to cheer Republicans up by pointing to the 2 to 1 Democrat registration edge in the district, and assured them that they don’t need to win 2 to 1 districts to still win big in November. But John MCain beat Obama in that district in 2008—where shall Republicans be in the fall if they can’t hold what McCain held while Obama was winning the election? Another argument from Rush was that Critz had run like a Republican, but that one ought not to have appealed to a man who has been saying for years (correctly) that if people are given a choice between a quasi-Democrat (i.e., a liberal Republican) and a Democrat, they’ll naturally opt for the real thing. Burns was the real thing here, but that didn’t help him.

Dick Morris made a more plausible case when he said that in a low turnout election, Democrats came out in bigger numbers because they had been trying to get Arlen Specter out of his Senate seat for years, and now at last had the opportunity to finish him off. There is probably some truth in this, but unfortunately, it exposes a more important truth: Democrats were motivated to turn out but Republicans were not. The real question is why, and the answer casts a very long shadow over the fall elections. The factor which, according to Morris, successfully motivated Democrats was a trivial one: getting even with Specter. Compare this to what might have motivated Republicans: the next six months will be a dangerous time for the country. Democratic leaders know that their ability to implement their agenda may soon be gone, and so in the coming months they will try to ram through every destructive measure they can. Since they have the votes, only one thing will stop them: fear. Specifically, the fear on the part of scores of Democrats that their votes will end their careers. That fear has been stoked by the results of statewide elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, but statewide electorates are so large that they can never be skewed to one side as much as local congressional districts, which means that even in the era of Scott Brown’s win, large local party registration differences can still make a district feel safe. And so a Republican win in a heavily Democrat district would greatly increase fear, and that fear would make the GOP safer in the next six months.

Why didn’t this powerful motive for Republicans to go to the polls outweigh the trivial one that motivated Democrats? The ground should have been fertile: Obama’s approval numbers in the district were much lower than the national average. But Republican voters were not motivated by this powerful case because Republican leaders were not able to make it effectively. They lacked the energy and focus needed to inspire their side to vote, and so, squandered their advantage. That is a troubling lesson of the PA12 result.

There has been much discussion of the resemblance between this fall and 1994, when the GOP made large gains to take the House. The constant theme of the comparisons has been the similarity between HillaryCare and ObamaCare as sources of deep disillusion with the sitting President, and this similarity is widely assumed to be enough to make for a comparable Republican sweep this fall. But this thinking ignores a crucial factor that was present in 1994 and is not present this year: highly effective, focused and energetic leadership.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich wasn’t content to let people vote against the incumbent Democrats—he gave them something to vote for: the Contract with America. The Contract gave the campaign a clear focus, and it projected drive and energy. Newt was a compelling figure in front of the TV cameras: charismatic, full of ideas, exuding confidence and competence. What would the 1994 election have been like without dynamic, focused leadership pushing a clearly delineated positive agenda? It might well have been like PA12 this year, and that is why Republicans need to take that result seriously if they are to avoid the same outcome this fall.

In the House, energy, ideas, and strategic thought come from Paul Ryan (the Roadmap) and Eric Cantor, but not from the wooden, unimaginative John Boehner. In the Senate, waves are made by the likes of Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint, but not by the passive Mitch McConnell. Neither Boehner nor McConnell has the charisma or the focus needed to dominate a TV screen. Nor do they have strategic judgment–remember them on Scozzafava or amnesty? Where is this Republican leadership’s equivalent of a Contract with America for the fall election? In PA12, voters were asked to vote against the Pelosi-Reed agenda, but they were not given anything to vote for. Both Boehner and McConnell seem to think they can coast to victory on a wave of anti-Obama sentiment, but that’s not what produced 1994’s big win. I have seen this slogan for the fall elections: Boehner for Speaker. That’s a sure way to put GOP voters to sleep.

Spokesmen for liberal ideas are everywhere in the media, but Republicans are given few opportunities to make their case, and so must make sure that what chances they have are used to maximum effect. That’s why an ability to use TV to explain conservative ideas quickly and easily in crisp, forceful language is indispensable in GOP leaders. In 1994, the GOP seemed for once to understand that, and passed over more senior figures to anoint a natural leader in Newt Gingrich. But since then, it has gone back to its old ways, installing people with seniority but without ideas or energy, all but guaranteeing defeat with uncharismatic, lifeless figures like Denny Hastert and Bob Dole.

At the moment, tea party energy occasionally supplies some of what is missing in the leadership, but that can never be more than sporadic. Ordinary people can sustain their extraordinary efforts for only so long before the demands of their own lives reassert themselves. It’s not surprising that tea party energy suddenly disappeared in PA12. In any case, energy without the kind of focus provided by effective leadership can be dangerous, as the quirky Rand Paul’s nomination showed. Tea parties are a symptom of what is wrong with the GOP, not an antidote to it.

The real lesson of PA12 is this:  if Republicans were hoping for a repeat of 1994 this fall, then they had better prepare themselves for a disappointment—unless and until the GOP understands how it won in 1994, and accordingly moves to correct the disastrous leadership deficit that was on clear display in PA12. If the party persists in approaching its best opportunity in many years with its present passive, uninspired and uninspiring leadership, it will thoroughly deserve that old label: the stupid party.

President Obama’s job-approval rating just hit an all-time low. And there’s a pattern behind the trifecta of issues that are driving the drop — the oil spill, the Arizona immigration-policing law and the fallout from the Greek crisis.

After four months of hovering between a low of 46 percent approval and a high of 49 percent, Obama just fell to 42 percent in the daily Rasmussen polls. What’s hurting him and why?

On each of these issues, the president originally seized on the issue to make populist political hay. But then the problem wouldn’t go away — and voters began to realize that Obama is, in fact, the president and (logically enough) started giving him much of the blame.

When oil started to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, Obama seized the opportunity for a partisan attack — blaming Republicans who had chanted “drill, baby, drill” the whole summer of 2008 as high gasoline prices gave John McCain’s candidacy new steam.

Even though the president had himself, with lamentable timing, moved to allow expanded drilling a few weeks before the rig exploded, the impetus for drilling was clearly seen as Republican, and the disaster hurt Republican ratings. Obama couldn’t resist also piling populist scorn on BP, lambasting big oil for the spill.

But then the leak didn’t stop — and the slick kept heading to shore. Now the public is wondering why it’s seen no presidential action to stop the spill. As the oil seeps onto the beaches of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, it also seeps into Obama’s poll numbers and drags them down. His press conference was a clear effort to look decisive and effective, and stop the bleeding — but it came awfully late in the crisis.

As soon as Arizona passed its law authorizing cops to pick up illegal immigrants, the president jumped on the issue, trying to use it to drive up Latino turnout for Democrats later this year.

But it became clear that the majority of Americans strongly back the law — and now Obama is sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to stop the bleeding in his polls.

Then there’s the stock market. After the crash of 2008, Obama was quick to blame banks and other big businesses for their irresponsible behavior and then to take credit for averting a global collapse in the aftermath. So when Greece exploded due to its top-heavy debt load and dragged the market below 10,000, people wondered if Obama’s populist treatment of the financial markets and his big spending and borrowing were subjecting America to economic peril.

When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading the credit rating of the United States of America — the richest nation, by far, on earth — it raises understandable alarm.

Of course, Obama’s polls will rise and fall in the weeks, months and years ahead; today’s 42 percent may prove a long-forgotten blip. But it’s bit like noticing the line of seaweed on the beach. The tide comes in and go out — but the seaweed marks where it will likely return to.

Look at it this way: Obama got 52 percent of the vote in 2008 — so his 42 percent approval means that one in five of his voters has turned on him.

And it’s a traumatic event for someone who voted for Obama and had stuck with him since, saying he approved of the president’s policies, to finally turn and says he doesn’t approve. That voter may go back to approving of his president again — but it gets easier and easier to voice disapproval.

Especially if the oil keeps spilling, the illegals keep coming — and the market keeps tanking.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.”

Welfare. Democrats view taxes as contributions to charity. (Seriously. You should talk to a few Democrats if you doubt it.) Consequently, when Democrats designed a welfare system that cost taxpayers trillions, they considered it a double good deed. Welfare taxes benefited the poor and forced Americans to do the right thing.† Over the years, however, it became clear that government “charity” dollars were actually producing a social disaster—driving fathers from their children, bribing teenage girls to have children out of wedlock, subsidizing drug abuse and destroying the work ethic of entire inner city communities.

To address the problem, Republicans proposed welfare reforms that would put recipients to work and get others off the rolls. Democrats said “No,” and dug in their heels. They had to defend the vast patronage system that welfare created for government bureaucrats, social workers and other beneficiaries, who could be counted on to vote for the Democrat Party.

But Democrats also knew that the romance of the victim would work in their favor. When Republicans proposed welfare reform, Democrats attacked them as mean-spirited and heartless. They said Republicans lacked compassion. They said Republicans were attacking the poor. They were Nazis

Powerful moral images like this don’t go away. They linger beyond the battle and resonate through future conflicts. In 1996, when Dick Morris persuaded Clinton to sign the Republican welfare bill “or lose the election,” the images of Republicans—anti-poor and uncharitable—stuck. Clinton won the election and presided over the Republican welfare reform, claiming it as his own. It is now part of his “legacy,” while Republicans are still seen as mean-spirited and uncaring.

– The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please submit it here. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

One way to reduce the wear and tear of Christmas shopping at the mall is to give books as presents. Books can be bought on the Internet, and they can be matched to the person who receives them without having to know that person’s measurements.

Dick Morris’ new book — “Catastrophe”— is an education in itself, on politics, on economics and on foreign policy. It is a strong antidote to the pious rhetoric and spin that come out of Washington and the media. Partly this is because Dick Morris was once a Beltway insider— an adviser to President Bill Clinton— who knows first-hand the ugly realities behind the pretty words that politicians use and that much of the media repeat.

Morris’ argument in “Catastrophe”— whose title tells us where he sees us headed— is backed up by numerous hard facts and supported by an understanding of history and economics. Most of all, it is supported by an understanding of politics as it is, rather than the way it is depicted by politicians and the media.

Dick Morris can also cut through a blizzard of political spin with a few plain words. In describing Barack Obama’s economic policies, Morris says simply: “Curing the recession was not his end; it was his means to the end. The end was bigger government.” Obama’s actions often make no sense if you believe Obama’s words, but they do make sense if you follow Dick Morris’ analysis.

A revised edition of Angelo Codevilla’s classic book, “The Character of Nations,” has been published this year, and it too is an education in itself. “The Character of Nations” is less focussed on immediate domestic political issues— though it does analyze the contrasting responses of the intelligentsia to Sarah Palin and Barack Obama— but it is focussed more on the underlying cultural developments that affect how nations work— or don’t work.

The very title of “The Character of Nations” is a challenge to the prevailing ideology that denies or downplays underlying differences among individuals, groups and nations. There are many examples of these differences. For example, Professor Codevilla says: “While it is unimaginable to do business in China without paying bribes, to offer one in Japan is the greatest faux pas.”

He sees the things that are valued differently in different cultures as the key to everything from economic progress to personal freedom.

But these values are not set in stone— which means that countries which currently benefit from a given set of values can lose those benefits when those values get lost.

Codevilla says: “The reason why inhabitants of the First World should keep the Third world in mind is that habits prevalent in the countries that became known as the Third World are a set of human possibilities that any people anywhere can adopt at any time. As Argentina showed in the twentieth Century, falling from the First World to the Third can be easy and quick.”

Another revised and very valuable book is “Choosing the Right College,” published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. This latest edition is once again by far the best college guide in America. Like many of us, it has put on weight over the years and is now 1,084 pages long, but its weight is all muscle.

First of all, “Choosing the Right College” asks the right question: What is the right college for you, not what is the “best” college by some formula for ranking colleges and universities. In addition to a very thorough examination of the academic realities at these institutions, it goes into the social atmosphere, which can make or break the whole college experience in terms of what is right for a particular student.

College is, after all, not just a school but a home, for four long years— usually for people who are living away from home for the first time in their lives. Being in the wrong place, in terms of neighbors and atmosphere, can ruin the academic advantages of even the best institution. This book helps match particular students with particular places, which is what is crucial.

My own books published this year include “The Housing Boom and Bust,” which made the New York Times best-seller list.

Another book of mine this year was the revised and enlarged edition of “Applied Economics,” which has a long chapter on the economics of medical care, including the experience of other countries that have gone down the road to government control of medicine. Their experience should be a warning to us all.