"Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg
One of the sorry tendencies of the current digital information economy is that it is quite possible to live in a balkanized world of media where you only get the opinions of your own partisans. Its quite feasible to live in a world of Daily Kos and My DD or alternatively in a world of Rush Limbaugh and Instapundit. I try to avoid this syndrome both by reading both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and most importantly by visiting The Corner everyday. Now The Corner,run by the National Review, is not really a blog, because readers are not allowed to comment on the posts. But it’s like you are a fly on the wall in some neoconservative dinner party, where everyone is congratulating each-other on how brilliant they are. They have disagreements about whether Huckabee is the death of the party or McCain is a traitor on Immigration, but they are really rather civil to each-other.
That’s why I’m rather surprised that no one of his colleagues has called out Corner contributor Jonah Goldberg on his odious new book, Liberal Fascism.In the book, Goldberg tries to say that Franklin Roosevelt and his liberal heirs in the Democratic party are the true fascists. I spent a good bit of time in Berlin in 1989 before the Wall came down, making a movie with German director Wim Wenders
In talking to Wim, his analysis was that when things started to go badly in the German economy, the young Hitler was able to get the middle class to believe that their problems all stemmed from the workers, their unions and the Jewish radicals that were often allied with the unions. Of course at that very moment the big German corporate bosses at Krupp and other companies were lining their pockets at the expense of both the middle class and the workers. But by having allies in the media that would constantly attack anyone who dissented from the ultra-right point of view and by using his armed brownshirt thugs to breakup rallies by leftist dissidents, Hitler was able to create a uniformity of thought in a few short years. Mussolini had similar success and by 1936 he was able to declare that, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.” In our own country we certainly have seen attempts by the State and their corporate allies to quash dissent. English historian Eric Hobsbawm
“Fascism was triumphantly anti-liberal. It also provided the proof that man can, without difficulty, combine crack-brained beliefs about the world with a confident mastery of contemporary high technology…. Nevertheless, the combination of conservative values, the techniques of mass democracy, and an innovative ideology of irrationalist savagery, essentially centered in nationalism, must be explained…. The strong commitment of the Left, from the liberal onwards, to anti-war movements, the huge popular revulsion against the mass killings of the First World War, led many to underestimate the emergence of a relatively small, but absolutely numerous, minority for whom uniform and discipline, sacrifice-of self and others- and blood arms and power were what made masculine life worth living. These Rambos of their time were natural recruits for the Radical Right.”
I know that Goldberg will say that Hobsbawm is a man of the left, but that doesn’t change the fact that Goldberg is positively Orwellian in his desire to rewrite history for the sake of removing the fascist taint from the Right. As Orwell said, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
It is just so disingenuous…
Axis of Evil (conflating three unrelated regimes with the axis of wwII)
IslamoFacist – (incorrectly assigning religious based stateless social movement with a dead corprate/state collusion)
and now Liberal Facism.
This shit makes no since unless its a deliberately cynical attempt to mislead people who are unclear on the original concepts behind the words.
Indeed, that would seem to be the prime motive behind such labeling. Of course, use of terms such as feminazis has already taken the meaning away from many such terms. Years ago, the economic system known as Communism, and its supposedly intermediate state of Socialism, came to be perceived as synonyms for fascism and repression and dictatorship, not without some cause, but at a great cost to any understanding of what it was we were fighting or competing with. The word ‘liberal’ itself has already been given a new meaning, and it is said with contempt, disgust, and loathing by so many people that few will defend the term or accept the label.
These days, fascist is used to mean anyone who holds a strong point of view and defends it with all their might. Young ‘iberals’ during the Vietnam war era began the process by attacking any heavy-handed politician or rasist sentiment as fascist, often without any understanding of the term themselves.
Okay, I’ll add this in here (see the Home page) too because this is where I meant it to go.
Finance is Fun
Fascinating stuff . . .
Posted: 14 Jan 2008 02:22 AM CST
One has to wonder about the way this world works when best selling books are designed not to educate and elucidate but to provide more fodder for the continuing battle between the liberals and the conservatives. Why do we buy into this crap? I only ask because I came across this quote from an interview with Jonah Goldberg the author of a new book entitled Liberal Fascism which ought to please TRM over at his D=S blog no end.
SCARBOROUGH: But you’re not suggesting in this book, though, that you can draw a line from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton or Mussolini to Barack Obama, are you?
GOLDBERG: Well, I’m saying you can draw a line, but it’s not a straight one. It goes all sorts of different places. I’m not saying that today’s liberalism is the son of Nazism or the son of Italian fascism. I’m saying it’s sort of like the great-grandniece once removed.
[laughter]
GOLDBERG: They have some common DNA, some common themes, some family resemblances that come up.But we also have them in the Republican Party today. I think compassionate conservatism is essentially a right-wing progressivism, and it’s very scary which way that can go.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh my gosh.
Luckily, the only media that seem willing to take him seriously are those on the conservative side. Gosh, I wonder why?
BTW, I look forward to spending time on your blog and learning a lot in the process.
This is a truly pathetic performance by Goldberg. I am told he said Mussolini was not a fascist, but a socialist. Tell that to the families of all the leftists he killed.
[...] This notion that because Obama is capable of giving an inspiring speech (and Mrs. Clinton isn’t), his campaign is devoid of specifics. I suggest Sean and the other pundits go take a look at the Issues section of the Obama web site. It’s pretty detailed. Sean is no Republican, but the conservative critics of Obama who use the “cult of personality” meme, are moving in the direction of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Facism idiocy. [...]
With all due respect, have any of you people actually read the book? From the comments posted here, I honestly have difficulty believing you have.
Doop- What do you feel I missed in my commentary?
Well, Jon, one thing I feel you missed was the point of the book
It is not that the “real fascists” are liberals. It is that contrary to the conventional wisdom of the Left, fascist roots and tendencies figure prominently in the evolution of what we call liberalism today — as they do in some aspects of conservatism.
I’ve not seen any of the critical reviewers refute the historical points he makes in this argument. They’ve simply tried to dismiss them out of hand — after all, EVERYBODY KNOWS that there isn’t a tinge of fascism on the Left, so by definition, any book that argues otherwise has to be a piece of crap. This argument reinforces preconceptions on the left, and has the additional value of precluding the necessity to discuss the issue.
An example: Father Coughlin. Like everybody else in this country, I knew he was a right-wing radio priest and a fascist. Goldberg points out that no, he wasn’t. He was a fascist, but he was unquestionably a man of the Left. I had to check the footnotes and references on that one, because it is 180 degrees from everything I’d ever read or been told, but damned if Goldberg isn’t right. As he points out, when Coughlin split with FDR, it was because he thought the New Deal didn’t go far enough (and because his desire to be a part of the administration wasn’t fulfilled), not because he thought FDR was too far left. But he was immediately tagged as a fascist right-winger because that was the tag attached to anybody who disagreed with Roosevelt. Just as today, every idea the liberals don’t like is called fascist.
One criticism that seems reasonable to me is that Goldberg’s definition of fascism is wrong. But if you accept the definition, it’s really hard to knock down his arguments.
Which probably is why the critical reviews are very, very long on personal attacks and very, very short on substantive criticism.
“Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
It is the opposite of libertarian, so obviously the roots of the left grew in it.
Doop- Father Coughlin was a rabid anti-semite and he accused Roosevelt of being a Socialist. He supported both Hitler and Mussolini on his radio show in the late 30’s. Look, I agree with Goldberg that Woodrow Wilson acted in a very authoritarian manner to shut down dissent in the Palmer Raids. But to equate that behavior with true Fascism (Hitler & Mussolini) is a distortion of History.
As Hobsbawm said, “Fascism was triumphantly anti-liberal. It also provided the proof that man can, without difficulty, combine crack-brained beliefs about the world with a confident mastery of contemporary high technology” That’s as good a description of Goldberg and the promotion machine around his book as anything I can imagine.
Jon,
No offense intended, seriously, but have you really read the book?
You’re repeating the same old mistakes — in the case of Coughlin, equating fascism with anti-semitism. Mussolini’s Italy was not anti-semitic until the Nazis took over. Good heavens, anti-semitism is alive and well in today’s Left.
And in any case, how do you explain Coughlin’s “It’s Roosevelt or ruin” and “The New Deal is Christ’s Deal,” “God is directing President Roosevelt,” and “he is the answer to our prayers” ? Why would he testify to Congress that if it didn’t support FDR’s monetary policies it would lead to revolution?
Did he support Mussolini in the ’30s? Yes, as did a lot of American progressives.
A lot of this comes down to definitions, not just of “fascism” but other terms. I am unfamiliar with Hobsbawm, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that his definition of liberalism is closer to what today we call conservatism, based on the primacy of individual liberty.
Look, I have no doubt Goldberg makes errors, and no doubt he sometimes presents information in a manner designed to support his views. This is hardly unique in the field.
What bothers me about the debate over his book is that there really isn’t much. Mostly, the Left spits out the usual defamations and pretends the book isn’t worth discussing.
Jon, I appreciate the views from both sides of this issue on your blog. Keep it up.
Agree with Jay, Jon. I am reveling in the relative civility.
Incidentally, although it may not appeal to some of the folks here, Goldberg is going to be the sole guest for an hour tonight on the Glen Beck show — Headline News Network, 7 p.m. EST.
And yes, I realize this is not likely to be an objective, probing interview
You didn’t read the book did you? Or if you did, you haven’t studied history, have you. Goldberg is absolutely right. His book is scrupulously researched and completely correct. Social engineers are essentially fascist – and liberals are as guilty of social engineering as anyone on the right. Your characterization of this important book as “odious” is unfair.
After watching Goldberg & Glenn Beck I have been debating whether to buy “Liberal Facism”. I appreciate the comments from those who have actually read the book and I consider those to be the most credible. If you haven’t actually read the book how can you form any independent opinion? Reviewers, lets hear more points of view.
Lest I be mistaken for a 100% apologist, there are times when I think Goldberg stretches too far to make something fit his thesis, and while I haven’t found any factual errors, sometimes there’s more to the story than he mentions.
A case in point is Mussolini. He was, as Goldberg points out, a socialist. No doubt about it, by Mussolini’s own words and deeds. It’s true a lot of American progressives thought Mussolini was the cat’s meow.
And it’s true, as Goldberg points out, that the platform of the Fasci di Combattimento that Mussolini co-founded in 1919 was replete with what we today consider leftist positions: Universal suffrage, lower voting age, eight-hour day, minimum wage, government agencies run by workers’ representatives, a large progressive tax on capital, “rigidly secular” schools, an old-age and pension system, establishing age limits for hazardous work, review of all war contracts……
However, he takes issue with the idea that when the party was trounced, Mussolini moved it further Right. Goldberg says he moved from socialist to populist; maybe so, but in the process most of those left-wing proposals disappeared. To me, that means he moved Right.
This conversation hasn’t gotten so interesting that I have started a new thread.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/fascism-and-democracy/
Who out their has tried to cut a tree down, sell a product, build a dog house, drive a car, operate a business, own a gun, hunt,fish, put in a toilet much less fix the roof on your home. I don’t know if they are “facist” or not but we have to deal with them in government every damn day. By the way Doop you are wasting your breath. A cogent thought I hear not from the left.