Liberal Fascism

[Kidicious]

I saw this book at the library in the new books section. It's written by Jonah Goldberg. It seems to be a culmination of some of the more ridiculous things conservatives have been saying on the internet over the last couple of years. He quotes George Orwell and George Carlin to make his point. Maybe we can discuse it. Has anyone read it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a bestselling book by Jonah Goldberg.

In the book, Goldberg argues that, contrary to conventional wisdom, fascist movements were and are left-wing. He states that both Modern Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) and Fascism descended from Progressivism, and in fact that prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".[1] Goldberg also argues that over time the term "Fascism" has lost its actual meaning and instead has descended to the level of being "a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic"[2] and that this devolution of the meaning is not new, noting that George Orwell had observed this in 1946 when he described the word as no longer having any meaning except to signify "something not desirable".[3][2] Goldberg goes to lengths to illustrate that there was more to Fascism than bigotry and genocide and, in fact, that bigotry and genocide were not so much a feature of Fascism itself but rather a feature of Nazism which was forced upon the Italian Fascists "after the Nazis had invaded northern Italy and created a puppet government in Salò".[4]

Goldberg has told interviewers that the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932."[5][6][7] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism[6] as an "enlightened Nazism."[8] Goldberg explains that the smiley face on the cover is a reference to comments made by comedian George Carlin on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher when he said that "when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."[9][10]

The book reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover nonfiction in its seventh week on the list.[11]


[edit] Reviews
Publishers Weekly said the "provocative and well-researched" book "probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics." PW further said that the book is "seriously argued and funny."[12]

Larry Thornberry of the Washington Times called the book "a major contribution to understanding the history of political ideas and attitudes over the last two centuries and change" and said that "readers will have to set aside some serious time to read it.... But for anyone wishing to understand the contemporary political scene, it will repay that reading time handsomely."[13]

Blogger and journalist David Neiwert, writing in The American Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak", writing, "The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism."[14]

Writing in The American Conservative, Austin W. Bramwell panned the book, saying "Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism" and that "Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book."[15]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote "'Liberal Fascism' is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults - no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars."[16]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic, "...I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane--and ultimately self-negating--books that I have ever read. . . . Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture."[17]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman complained that Goldberg's grouping of left-wing politics with fascism is based less on solid connections than on weak, tenuous associations: "Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! . . . This is a book that argues that Woodrow Wilson 'was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator' and that it is 'impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic.'"[18]

John Tabin wrote in The American Spectator that "Scholars have never quite come to a consensus on how to define fascism. Goldberg's approach is to let the record speak for itself."[19]

Ron Radosh of The New York Sun praised the book, saying that "He (Goldberg) has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject." and in closing said "Disagree if you must, but go out and read this brilliant, insightful, and important book."[20]

[Ramo]

Jonah Goldberg is my hero.

[Kidicious]

[Ramo]

I haven't actually read the book, but I did read a few reviews of it a while back. My favorite line is from the book jacket:

The quintessential liberal fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

I mean, simply awesome.

[Kidicious]

I might read it for the laughs. I miss Ned.

[Patroklos]

Goldberg also argues that over time the term "Fascism" has lost its actual meaning and instead has descended to the level of being "a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic"[2] and that this devolution of the meaning is not new, noting that George Orwell had observed this in 1946 when he described the word as no longer having any meaning except to signify "something not desirable"

This is absolutely correct.

[Zkribbler]

I read an article about a year or two. It was mere babbling.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


This is absolutely correct.

That's why I call you fascist.

[Ramo]

Jon Stewart had a pretty amusing interview with him:

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Jon Stewart had a pretty amusing interview with him:

"It's a nice fascism"



What the hell does that even mean?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


This is absolutely correct.

Maybe in America.

A bit like the word "Liberal". Until the last 5-10 years and the influence of internet speak on my consciousness, I considered "Liberal" to have the laissez-faire connotation (or the soft version of Libertarian). American usage ruined the word for me.

[Patroklos]

He actually sort of slaughtered Jon in that one. Not his best showing.

[Patroklos]

Maybe in America.

Given the ease with which non American posters toss it about (*cough* Agathon *cough*) it would appear to be common everywhere.

bit like the word "Liberal".

Exactly

[Agathon]

I read some of this. It's just part of the larger attempt to associate left wing positions with authoritarianism. Someone needs to inform Goldberg that the science says different.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Given the ease with which non American posters toss it about (*cough* Agathon *cough*) it would appear to be common everywhere.

One swallow does not a summer make (or more specifically, internet posters do not reflect the vernacular, at least not yet. But I accept it may go that way that 'fascism' loses its meaning.)

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Jon Stewart had a pretty amusing interview with him:

Oh god, tell me there's an uncut version somewhere.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Patroklos
He actually sort of slaughtered Jon in that one. Not his best showing.

[DaShi]

Yeah, Pat was watching a different video.

[MarkG]

Patroklos

[DRoseDARs]

Doughy Pantload*



*As this tool is known in the liberal blogosphere.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I saw this book at the library in the new books section. It's written by Jonah Goldberg. It seems to be a culmination of some of the more ridiculous things conservatives have been saying on the internet over the last couple of years. He quotes George Orwell and George Carlin to make his point. Maybe we can discuss it. Has anyone read it?

To be fair, you quoted George Carlin to support your point in the OT-NT thread less than a week ago, so you can't mock him on that count. But I saw the Daily Show interview, and he did look pretty absurd, yes.

[DaShi]

Well, he slaughtered Jon Stewart in the video that Patty saw.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, he slaughtered Jon Stewart in the video that Patty saw.

--

What a wackjob. Organic food is fascist?!!

Just because Fascism had some communitarian ideas doesn't make it liberal! I mean there are definitely some Conservative communitarians (usually centered around religious beliefs).

[BeBro]

Speaking about 'Liberal fascism' is as good as other important political theories, like those about nazicommies or Chinarusskies

[Patroklos]

When Jon has to resort to

1.) just being simply rude (which I know to many in the liberal world equals "edgy" and "cool")

and

2.) making snide remarks that really have no berring on the topic

and most importantly

3.) cursing for comedic effect,

then Jon is on the losing end, especially since he can do sooooo much better, and has in other interviews.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Agathon
Someone needs to inform Goldberg that the science says different.

What science? Poli-Sci?

[Ramo]

Patty

[Patroklos]

I see you adopt Jon's style when you have nothing substantive to say

[Ramo]

Are you implying that there was something substantive I could've responded to?

[Ramo]

.