« Does McCain Have a Ceiling? (II) | Main | Rudy Can Fail » Liberal Fascism And Its Critics13 Jan 2008 09:00 am Here is some free advice for liberals who don't care much for Jonah Goldberg or his (bestselling) new volume: Either confine yourself to dismissive snark, of the sort perfected by my colleague Matt, or buckle down and actually read the damn thing. The "definitive critiques" by people who admit that they haven't yet cracked the covers are not helpful to your cause. And yes, I'll have something to say about the book myself, I promise - but only once I've finished reading it. TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments (243)
My thesis=Conservatives are Stalinists. Gonna disagree with that? Make fun of me? Even before my book/paper is finished?
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right ', a Fascist century." "In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress." --Benito Mussolini, the foremost fascist philosopher and coiner of the term fascism (thanks to Alex Koppelman for the quotes)
Ross, The author admits to not reading Mussolini's defining text on Fascism. How exactly can I take him seriously?
Freddie et al, Don't forget this precious quote from Goldberg: "the only reason [Mussolini] got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I."
Correction, I should have said not reading Mussolini's defining text in the last three years. The last 3 years, which is when he was writing his oh so serious book.
I think RickM has it right. Has Ross read the latest Chomsky? The latest Michael Moore? Is he up on the current lit from the white supremacy movement? Has he read the latest anti-semitic tracts out there? Does he need to? This is the kind of standard that seems awfully cutting when you use it to attack other people, but is much harder to apply to yourself. You can engage a work you haven't read by a)having read the past work of the author and hazarding guesses at the quality based on what he or she has previously written, and b)engaging the basic argument as has been explained by the author in the course of promoting and commenting on the work (and Goldberg has not been shy.) Anyway, we know the basic argument of Goldberg's book-- that liberalism is the intellectual progeny of fascism. And you know what? That argument can not be made in a serious or meaningful way. It can't because it is refuted by about 85 years or so of serious scholarship. It is refuted by every credible scholar and historian working in the field. And, most damningly, as I just gave you a taste of, it is refuted by the writings and scholarship of every major fascist intellectual and leader. I don't understand why people are acting like the fascist movements in Europe occurred eons ago and we can only hazard guesses as to what their motivations truly are. This movement is less than a hundred years old. There is reams of materials to read, primary source materials, from the architects of fascism. It just takes a little research to find it. And all of it, by every fascist thinker and leader, undermines Goldberg's thesis. Every one I've read has defined fascism in opposition to socialism and communism. Goldberg has specifically said that communism and fascism are the same. Why do I have to extend a veneer of respect to an argument that is transparently incoherent?
Goldberg does his impressive work, which I got yesterday and just started digging into, a disservice both with the title and the book cover. It's a serious look at the historical roots of fascism and, with that, the danger that progressives or liberals must understand when using the coercive power of the state in favor of the group or nation or many. The "one and the many". The Madisonian dilemma. Tocqueville's "bland despostism". It comes in many forms; all of which one should recognize as potentially dangerous to individual liberty. Those liberals or progressives who ignore the main theme - if not the book itself - are only harming their cause. So be it.
David Neiwert, of the Orcinus blog, has been writing about real fascism for years, in a true, scholarly fasion that is light years beyond Goldberg's reactionary propaganda. The American Prospect ran his review of Goldberg's book 5 days ago, here. And yes, Neiwert read it first. For some insight from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, you might try his article. Sorry that he's a liberal. Maybe Jonah's buddies will be able to send him to the re-education camps some day.
SteveMG- If it is a serious book then why does Jonah say so many unserious things like "the only reason [Mussolini] got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I." And "The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism." How is it even possible for one non-scholar to overturn the entire historiography of fascism without consulting primary sources?
I finished reading it. It's pretty stupid. Anything interesting or correct that Jonah tries to say was said more succinctly and sharply by Hayek 60 years ago. Jonah's "Tempting of Conservatism" chapter, where he tries to show that he's an equal opportunity analyst, by identifying incipient fascist tendencies on the right, is almost shockingly incomplete. Only Bush's compassionate conservatism and Pat Buchanan are fascist; he doesn't even mention the President's expansion of war powers or the Iraq War. In another section he also critiques Brooks and Kristol's National Greatness Conservatism (which he has to, since they were inspired by Teddy Roosevelt, and his theory revolves around the idea that Progressivism was a fascist movement.) However, the critique of National Greatness Conservatism is only based around its "shared sacrifice" domestic agenda, despite the fact that an expansionist foreign policy was a key to the appeal of both Roosevelt and Brooks/Kristol. For a guy who constantly harangues liberals over Williams James' "Moral Equivalent of War" essay, it seems absurd to overlook the actual support for war by people on his side. From the original National Greatness Wall Street Journal essay "It embraces a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of national strength and moral assertiveness abroad." Can I make fun of it now?
As has been indicated above, Goldberg has a fairly lengthy record in the commenting-about-liberals business. I'll be interested to see if you think he's broken any new ground.
that liberalism is the intellectual progeny of fascism. Nope. He's arguing (it's an argument; one can reject it or embrace it; but it helps to first understand it) that on the left/right polarity, that fascism belongs on the left sphere and not the right. It's been placed on the far right end of the spectrum when it belongs on the far left. Fascism, liberalism, socialism, are brothers, offshoots of modern statism. They all believe in using the power of the state in imposing the right way of living on its citizens. He admits, indeed, there are elements of fascism on the right. There are (so far, I'm about 1/3 through it) a number of problems with his argument. He doesn't adequately address, for my tastes, the ultranationalism inherent in fascism. The left largely rejects extreme nationalism. Read the book. It won't hurt.
The term "liberal fascism" is by any definition, a malicious oxymoron written by a right wing rhetorical grenade chucker. Just a few of the characteristics defining 20th century Fascism. Hyper=nationalism
SteveMG- This is where your and Goldberg's concepts are so muddled: "Fascism, liberalism, socialism, are brothers, offshoots of modern statism." What does that mean? Offshoots of modern statism? Was statism a movement that valued an expansionist state for the very sake of expanding the state? Or is it simply, and I might add correctly, simply the belief that the state can and should enact activist policies that are intended to benefit the lives of the citizenry? Who isn't a statist to varying degrees? Certainly over the past 25 years, George W. Bush is more statist than any other President. I guess Jonah and you would call him a fascist, no?
Actually, the term "liberal fascism" was invented not by Goldberg, but by H.G. Wells; and he meant it as a good thing.
Sorry, are you saying that liberals and progressives aren't statists? They don't want to use the powers of the state on behalf of the common good? Or in the cause of social justice? The old immanentize the eschaton? Sure seems like it to me.
SteveMG- That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that statism is not on the same intellectual plane as liberalism, conservatism, fascism or communism. Meaning, statism is not a system of organizing and viewing the world--it is merely the belief that the state could and should actively improve the lives of its citizenry. You, and presumably Goldberg, are committing a category error if group statism and liberalism together. Statism was not a movement or ideology prior to liberalism, fascism and communism. Statism is a tendency within those ideologies (and conservatism, too), but statism is not an offshot or intellectual offspring from any specific ideology. It is a characteristic of those ideologies. If indeed you are accurately representing Goldberg's argument that liberal, fascism, and communism are all descendants from the intellectual archetype of statism, then I have even more disincentive to read his book.
This is where your and Goldberg's concepts are so muddled: "Fascism, liberalism, socialism, are brothers, offshoots of modern statism." First, those are my words summarizing what he says. Or what I read as what he is saying. So, don't make the mistake of putting my words into his mouth. Second, he goes into extensive details on the roots of fascism. And the differences among liberalism, socialism, fascism. It would take a rather lengthy (and boring as hell) summary here. And, again, I've only gotten through about 1/3. Perhaps it's better to hammer this out when Ross addresses it. He's much better at this game than I am.
Blackadder is correct, it was originally used by Wells. Re: the debate between Rickm and SteveMG. It seems like Jonah's basic point is that Rousseau's belief in the will of the people as sometimes superceding the actual desires of individual persons was nascent fascism. Then, the French Revolution and the modern progressive/liberal movement, as well as actual fascism, are descended from common ancestry. That's why he calls liberalism the niece of fascism.
Sam wrote: "It seems like Jonah's basic point is that Rousseau's belief in the will of the people as sometimes superceding the actual desires of individual persons was nascent fascism." If that is the case, then Rousseau's idea was also nascent authoritarianism, compassionate conservatism, excepting the executive from the rule of law, Stalinism, Maoism, Nasserism, Titoism, syndicalism, corporatism, Bushism, etc.
Rickm, I'm pretty sure Jonah would put everyone of those in that category, and those that he didn't would be for purely political reasons.
Rickm, I'm pretty sure Jonah would put everyone of those in that category, and those that he didn't would be excepted for purely political reasons.
What I am saying is that statism is not on the same intellectual plane as liberalism, conservatism, fascism or communism. Modern statism as manifested, for example, by the Wilson Administration. Just read his section on the Wilson presidency. Statism took on an entirely different color, if you will, at the beginning of the 20th century. It changed from being an administrative state to a state dedicated to, for example, social justice or the collective will or in service to the nation, et cetera. I'm doing a fairly poor - well, really poor - job of explaining some pretty complicated arguments. Ross will make me look pretty foolish in a couple of days.
Reading these comments reinforces the original posting at the top; read the book so you know what you are talking about. These comments also show that the culture wars have hollowed out our collective knowledge base; we fling around terms like fascist and commie but we don't even know what they mean anymore. I haven't read the book, but if it makes us relearn (or rethink) our political theory 101 then it is a good thing.
That argument can not be made in a serious or meaningful way. It can't because it is refuted by about 85 years or so of serious scholarship. It is refuted by every credible scholar and historian working in the field. Of course, this specious spurious victim of academicide is apodictic in defining who is "serious" and "credible," the leftist loons whom he has read, of course. Actually reading a book before condemning it isn't necessary for the committed loon.
From Goldberg himself: "Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist." That is utterly, utterly untrue. Every fascist leader and intellectual defined fascism in opposition to communism. Anyone who has made such a basic mistake in his evaluation of what fascism is can't be making a valid argument. Nope. He's arguing (it's an argument; one can reject it or embrace it; but it helps to first understand it) that on the left/right polarity, that fascism belongs on the left sphere and not the right. It's been placed on the far right end of the spectrum when it belongs on the far left. From Goldberg: "[Liberalism] is definitely totalitarian....Listen to the rhetoric of Barack Obama, it's all about unity, unity, unity, that we have to move beyond our particular differences and unite around common things, all of that kind of stuff. That remains at the heart of American liberalism, and that's what I'm getting at."
He's arguing...that on the left/right polarity, that fascism belongs on the left sphere and not the right. It's been placed on the far right end of the spectrum when it belongs on the far left. That is indeed the extent of his argument. I've read the book, and it is perhaps the most well-researched "I know you are, but what am I?" in the history of the world. If the subject is the "bland despotism" of progressives, look at what Ezra Levant is going through in Canada. If the subject is the "police state" of conservatives, look at the Drug War and its very literal confiscations of property and freedom. To hell with Mom and Dad both, whichever side of the aisle they find themselves on.
Of course, as daveinboca shows us, the far right can only support their alternate histories, of course, by attempting to discredit those whose jobs it is to do the actual primary source research, of course, that we like to, of course, call scholarship.
Of course, this specious spurious victim of academicide is apodictic in defining who is "serious" and "credible," the leftist loons whom he has read, of course. Actually reading a book before condemning it isn't necessary for the committed loon. This made me laugh out loud. Here's the thing, sport: Have you read the books by the leftist loons you're criticizing? No. Of course not. Anyway, you don't have to believe leftist loons, because the fascists themselves defined themselves in opposition to communism. Fascism was an explicitly anti-communist movement! They said so themselves, over and over again! Why is that so hard to grasp? Oh wait, that's right-- your side is ideologically opposed to actual research. My bad.
. Every fascist leader and intellectual defined fascism in opposition to communism. Goldberg said socialism, not communism. Fascism and socialism were brothers; they were not, originally, ideological antipodes. Think of it as liberal anti-communism and conservative anti-communism. As the poster above noted, one of the main problems here is our differing views on what "statism" or "socialism" mean. We can't even agree on basic terms. How the heck can be move on from there. Especially given the limited nature of posting. E.g., I was using the term "statism" much differently (I think) than my fellow poster Rick used it. This is too much of me, frankly. Perhaps another reader of the book can give a better explanation.
"I haven't read the book, but if it makes us relearn (or rethink) our political theory 101 then it is a good thing." I am all for rethinking or re-evaluating our political theory from serious and relatively non-partisan authors. It's just that Jonah Goldberg is not in that category. He's in the category with Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. And I haven't read any of their books either, because I think they're intellectually dishonest - with an agenda to further conservative causes. I read most every thing Jonah writes on the web and nothing tells me I should spend a nickel or a minute of my time with his book of the absurd title.
Haven't read the book, but it seems like Goldberg sets up conservatism and the "right" as the opposite of statism such that all statist ideologies (including fascism) are automatically liberal and of the "left." That's a distortion of the actual history and practice of conservatism. Although a professed desire for "smaller government" (the DoD excluded, of course) and tax cuts are one component of modern movement conservatism, conservatism is not and never has been classical liberalism.
Nightjar, Secondly, it is a book, not a column and not a post on the National Review website. Many authors, when given the space a book allows, write more thoroughly-researched and thoughtful treatises. Lastly, the title comes from the prominent leftist H.G. Wells which was meant to reinforce the thesis in the book.
Mr. Douthat, Mortimer Adler offered an advisory that not every book is worthy of a careful line-by-line reading, and appended to that a systematic scheme for inspecting a book antecedent to a rapid quick-and-dirty reading antecedent to a reading with care, with the prudent reader terminating his efforts at a point where the data indicate they are no longer worthwhile. The purpose of taxonomy is to clarify, and it does so by selecting the most salient features and then constructing sub-classifications by selecting the most salient feature given a certain superordinate feature. From the title of the book, blurbs, and brief reviews, it appears Mr. Goldberg has set himself the task of demonstrating that certain aspects of political economy are the ultimate features a proper political taxonomy. I would wager that a guided and selective reading would tell you whether he achieved that task or attempted to achieve it. (One might suspect that the title Liberal Fascism was selected because a title like Commonalities between Fascism and the Therapeutic State might be more indicative of contents but bad for sales). There are other reasons you might want to read the book in toto. Mr. Goldberg (along with Michael Kinsley and Maureen Dowd) is something of a humor writer manque and is usually at least mildly amusing. It might have some entertainment value (and the cover art is pretty funny).
Honestly, Goldberg's book is nothing but an embarassment for conservatives everywhere. It's the sort of silly name calling and semi-literate historical comparisons you used to see in mimeographed newsletters in the 1960s. There's nothing original about it either - it is hardly news that Mussolini and Hitler were fans of economic policies that were redistributive and would certainly not be 'conservative' from a Hayekian point of view. But Gotz Aly and other real scholars have covered that ground. And Aly did make some interesting links from Hitler to the modern German welfare state that make leftists squirm. But Goldberg is not Aly - he tries to draw straight lines between historically unrelated phenomena simply to try to stir the pot.
Keith You may be right, but the several comments and reviews I've read, suggest an absurdity of content matched by the absurd title, no matter who first coined the phrase. I agree, it is a book that should be read liberals, if for no other reason than to debunk it. If you or others who bother to contribute the 20 bucks or so to buy and read it conclude it has merit, then I'll be wrong. That is merit other than creating new wingnut definitions for themselves and liberals toward promoting their conservative ideology over liberalism. Jonah Goldberg an academic author. Who'd a thunk it.
Meaning, statism is not a system of organizing and viewing the world--it is merely the belief that the state could and should actively improve the lives of its citizenry. Outside the ambit of contemporary anarchism, the utility of the state is generally conceded. My thesis=Conservatives are Stalinists. Gonna disagree with that? Make fun of me? Even before my book/paper is finished? The Stalin regime was a practical expression of a social order sketched out in a distinct text whose paternity is acknowledged by all Communist regimes. You could also look at the Stalin regime as a latter-day expression of an antique type of political economy, but the type in question is one that has scant precedent in the Medieval or Modern Occident. The equation of 'conservatism' with 'Stalinism' is more obtrusively absurd than what Mr. Goldberg appears to be attempting.
The book is a boon for two groups--the know-nothings, who can repeat phrases like 'serious' and 'academic' for the first time in their lives, and the know-betters, like Ross, who understand the book sucks, but can use it as some sort of meta-critique of liberalism. The sad truth is that there is a good book about fascism and the modern democratic state out there. For instance, I'm reading the irritatingly dense Homo Sacer right now, which is about as far from Goldberg territory as words can take you, and it follows (as far as I can tell) the course of .control over humans in the modern state, whether fascist or democratic. What I don't understand is why actual conservatives with brains aren't furious about this book being published. Besides all of the nepotism and the glaring lack of talent, there is the this: you want to talk about liberals, Hayekian freedom, and the space in-between, fine, go for it. But something stupid like Liberal Fascism will not only make it into a talking point intended to win a three-second conversation on cable television, it's going to forever set the standard at low and moronic.
In this case, I choose to judge the book by its cover. Goldberg may be likable in person, but the fact that he chose to associate Liberals with Hitler speaks volumes about his judgement. And if you wish to make the argument that his publisher chose the cover design, then I would counter that he had the right to reject it and chose not to. That speaks volumes about his character as well. Why on earth should I reward such behavior by buying the book?
Doug- Also, Jonah uses the cover his blog hosted at National Review. He definitely endorses the cover.
I have a challenge for Ross, and Jonah, though I know both the latter rarely reads or responds to comments, preferring only to selectively sample them to highlight how they are all dismissable crazy ranting. Jonah's book is inherently a work of Intellectual History. And, as it turns out, this is an academic field with a lot of great thinkers who know a heck of a lot about these sorts of subjects. If Jonah's central thesis is serious, and he at least claims it is, and if it is controversial and new research, which it certainly seems to be, why doesn't Jonah submit it to a journal of Intellectual History for review? Or perhaps it's neither that serious, nor that rigorous? It seems to me that someone whining about not judging a book by it's title is on pretty thin ice when they've picked a title that is, for lack of a better word, a form of trolling, sure to pump up sales amongst the thriving Coulter market. And while I've not read the book yet, I think we live in a day and age when the central arguments of any work can be summed up and related fairly well, including describing them on the book's own promo material. If the critics of Jonah's work are all wrong and misinformed, then it would be nice if he'd seriously try to show how, instead of just insisting that they need to help pump up his sales before being able to judge. It seems to me pretty clear that the whole exercise of the book is to use the word facism over and over and, even while disclaiming that he's not directly accusing all modern liberals of being genocidal maniacs, to simple use the bad connotation of how MOST people understand the term to smear any and everyone who falls under his much much broader definition. If I'm wrong, or misinformed about this, then please: don't complain about how I haven't read it yet. If I'm so misinformed, it should be trivially easy to show that I am. So why all the coyness?
I may flip through this book if I see it laying around somewhere, but I certainly wouldn't pay one cent for it. I don't have to visit Goldberg's bathroom to know that his shit stinks.
Freddie is awfully impressed that the original "fascists" opposed the original "communists." That would be really convincing, except that -- as Goldberg has already pointed out -- it doesn't undermine their similar roots and objectives. Freddie's argument here is as if one tried to claim that Protestants and Catholics don't share any common heritage, because after all they used to oppose and even kill each other (and therefore a book about "Christian Catholicism" is an oxymoron).
Ross - Good luck w/ the reading; I guess someone has to do it. btw: I hope you have mental health insurance.
As a sort of sidebar to this discussion, it's interesting for me (real interest, not faux) how some on the political left uncritically accept the view that the proper role of the state is to promote justice and fairness and equality. Feed us, house us, take care of us. That's simply what it's supposed to do. They see no danger in expanding the state to accomplish these goals. This, I think, is one of the major points Goldberg is making. By documenting the historical roots between liberalism and fascism, he points out the potential danger when using the modern state for a larger eschatological purpose. The fact that many are outraged about anyone exposing these comparisons underscores, for me, how careless they are about using the state so expansively. If it's a good goal, why not let government do it? Liberals aren't, of course, fascists. Their goals are noble; but using ignoble means to achieve noble goals can corrupt that goal. Conservatives run the same risk (war on terror anyone?). People tend to lose their concerns about power when they exercise it. Dismiss Goldberg as a neocon crank, if you wish. Not much I can say to persuade you otherwise. But you're doing your cause no good by dismissing some of his ideas.
In this case, I choose to judge the book by its cover. Goldberg may be likable in person, but the fact that he chose to associate Liberals with Hitler speaks volumes about his judgement. I do not think a smiley-face icon has much ideological content, 'liberal' or otherwise. I recall a man I saw in a Halloween costume around about 1975. His was a Ku Klux Klan outfit on the back of which was stenciled the smiley-face icon adjacent to a speech balloon which read "Have a Nice Day!". Similar joke.
No, JD, it's more like saying Evangelical Christianity and Scientology are linked because they both relied on buildings, books, recruitment, and the need for divine meaning (with whatever it is Scientologists believe in substituted for 'divine'). Because it's true--socialism and fascism post-WWI do have certain similarities. The foremost is that they were both oriented towards politics. Amazing, right? They involved humans, for example, and relied on political interaction, which required that you respond to certain realities in people's lives. What's crazy about Goldberg's argument is that he seems to be saying true conservatives are so out there that any sort of political interaction involving the economic or social life is kin to totalitarianism Which is fine, if you're a pure anarchist, I guess, but there's no real evidence that Goldberg is. He's just wrote a book that slams liberals now by charting what socialists did in the 20s and how that compared to the rising fascist movement. He also seems completely uninterested as to why the New Deal America compared to Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's USSR ended up in a rather different political quadrant. Real books by real writers, even those with severe ideological slants, are obvious because they actually care about their subjects.
SteveMG wrote: Whoa whoa whoa hold up!!! Did you just equate using the state to "promote justice and fairness and equality" with a "larger eschatological purpose"????
I do not think a smiley-face icon has much ideological content, 'liberal' or otherwise. No, but the word "Liberal" does. You may not have noticed, but it's the first word of the book's two-word title. And the smiley-face Klan outfit is a joke from Blazing Saddles.
As a sort of sidebar to this discussion, it's interesting for me (real interest, not faux) how some on the political left uncritically accept the view that the proper role of the state is to promote justice and fairness and equality. Feed us, house us, take care of us. That's simply what it's supposed to do. At the risk of sounding picayune, I think it would be generally (if not universally) agreed that a function of the state is to promote justice and fairness; what would be in dispute would be the precise content of 'justice' and 'fairness'. Likewise, bar for Jos. Sobran and people of like mind, the state is there to provide goods and services (order-maintainence, rationing of the commons, &c), just not the sorts of goods and services that can be produced more efficiently by the private sector.
If Goldberg's point is that: P1 liberalism == big government P2 conservatism == small government C fascism is a branch of liberalism then he's saying nothing that the National Review hasn't been saying since its inception, even as it defended and applauded Franco. He's also tacitly admitting that Ron Paul is the only actual conservative running for president this year (and I don't say that as a fan of Paul.)
Doug recalls: "And the smiley-face Klan outfit is a joke from Blazing Saddles." Yeah. Like his hero, Saint Reagan, Art Deco conflates movies with reality.
No, but the word "Liberal" does. You may not have noticed, but it's the first word of the book's two-word title. I did notice. The principal referent to Hitler is the mustache on the smiley-face icon. "Fascism", whether used rigorously or not, refers to an array of governments and movements, not merely Hitler's Germany. Some were (or inclined to be) genocidally violent (the German Nazis and the Croatian Ustase) and some were not (the Italian Fascists).
Art- Don't forget that Goldberg writes that "the white male is the Jew of liberal fascism."
Did you just equate using the state to "promote justice and fairness and equality" with a "larger eschatological purpose"???? Yes! Of course. "We will not rest", says Hillary or Barack or Ted Kennedy and so on, "Until every child has healthcare. Until no child ever goes to bed hungry. Until all racism is erased from America. Until every person has an adequate education. Until we achieve justice for all and equality for all and a fair society for all".. et cetera et cetera... Until America is perfect, government must continue and expand its activities. More programs, more spending, more legislation. We hear this all...the...time. Every problem in America for the left (I am, of course, painting with large strokes) must be addressed with a government administered program. Government must not rest, the state must not be put aside, until this end goal is met. Immanentizing the eschatology indeed.
SteveMG writes: "This, I think, is one of the major points Goldberg is making. By documenting the historical roots between liberalism and fascism, he points out the potential danger when using the modern state for a larger eschatological purpose." Are you trying to convince yourself that Goldberg has some sort of noble purpose here, Steve? The prick SUPPORTS TORTURE. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the potential dangers of the modern state - he embraces them, as long as they're untilized by his side.
RickM: In this usage, the state's end purpose. What is the goal of government? Not as in the end of the world. No, I'm not saying that liberals want to use the state to end the world. This format shows, once again, that it's a poor one to express ideas. Especially if someone (me?) is using it so poorly.
Commentators have missed the real point of Goldberg's writing - which is soft, strong, and thoroughly absorbent. I just hope the publishers will make the second edition easier to use. Put some of those neat little dots down the side of each page - it helps to be able to tear them out cleanly before you wipe.
I don't want to sound like a presumptuous European, but really most of you guys seem clueless about some of the major themes of European history after the Franch revolution. In one word, for several generations the great engine of cultural history was the myth of the revolution, the idea that a new world order of freedom and equality was about to come along (this ended up with Auschwitz and the Gulag, of course). I have not read Goldberg, but I have read Ernst Nolte, Renzo De Felice and Eric Voegelin and I can tell you the following: fascism (and Nazism) conceived of themselves as REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS just as much as communism. The difference was that they identified the coming immanent escathon with the nation and the race, not with the proletariat. But inasmuch they were revolutionary, they were not conservative! So you liberal friends have to decide exactly what you want to call a "right winger". Is it an anti-revolutionary (like Edmund Burke or Hayek or Del Noce) or is it a fascist? These are two exactly opposite philosophies of history. Just don't tell me that a "fascist" is some king of authoritarian thug, because intolerance is a common feature of all ideological revolutionary movements (including the current American version, political correctness). On the other hand, if "liberalism" (in the contemporary American sense, which is NOT the traditional European sense) is a successor of the European socialist tradition, then indeed it shares the same philosopical ancestors (e.g. Rousseau, Hegel etc.) as fascism. I am afraid in US schools nobody reads any longer that great classic of American political history, Prof. Jacob Talmon's "Origin of Totalitarian Democracy."
SteveMG: "I'm using the word "eschatology" as meaning the ultimate destiny or end purpose. In this usage, the state's end purpose. What is the goal of government? Not as in the end of the world. No, I'm not saying that liberals want to use the state to end the world. This format shows, once again, that it's a poor one to express ideas. Especially if someone (me?) is using it so poorly." Hint: If you mean "goal," say goal.
Yeah. Like his hero, Saint Reagan, Art Deco conflates movies with reality. I actually have never seen Blazing Saddles, bar bits and fragments which were on the televison last summer when I was visiting a family member in a nursing home. Don't remember that scene. The fellow in question I met at the home of a friend, in 1975. I have no particular investment in Mr. Reagan, and never voted for him.
jacksonbollock writes: "I just hope the publishers will make the second edition easier to use. Put some of those neat little dots down the side of each page - it helps to be able to tear them out cleanly before you wipe." Jonah's hoping the second edition is bound in Iranian skin.
Thanks, Carlo. Excellent contribution. You're one post is ten times better than my incoherent five or so. I should just let you respond for me.
So Art Deco, I'm confused. You took issue with my claim that the book's cover associates Liberalism with Hitler. I support my point by pointing out that the word Liberal and the imagery of Hitler are both on the front, prominently displayed and right next to each other. You counter by saying that smiley faces and fascism can sometimes refer to other things as well, so no attempt to associate Liberalism with Hitler exists. Is that a fair assessment of your argument?
A few points: Re: If that is the case, then Rousseau's idea was also nascent authoritarianism, compassionate conservatism, excepting the executive from the rule of law, Stalinism, Maoism, Nasserism, Titoism, syndicalism, corporatism, Bushism, etc. Indeed. I would add that outside the Anglo-American world, the basic idea that the State should promote the common good and should take (in most things) precedence over individual preferences, is probably shared by most people. "Statism" of some sort or another is probably the default worldview of most people in the world, and of most complex societies throughout history; the ideas of individualism and liberalism are the innovation and largely peculiar to Anglo-American socities in the modern era. To pile together such things as different as Titoism, Falangism, Stalinism and Christian Socialism all together and call them 'fascism' reminds me of those Muslims who would lump together all non-Muslim countries as 'The World of War'. What Mr. Goldberg calls 'statism', I would call simple common sense. The state does, in fact, exist to promote the common good, the general will, the pursuit of virtue, etc. Statism is not a modern idea either. The precolumbian Inca Empire was an impressively centralized state that has been seen by many on the left as a sort of precursor to modern socialism and as a utopian Golden Age. Plato, too...was Plato a 'fascist'? Give me a break? One could argue on similar grounds that the modern libertarian conservatives are like the Taliban. After all, the Taliban had their origins in the Afghan Mujahideen, who were libertarian anti-Statists (at least relative to the communist regime in Kabul), who wanted to preserve their property, religion, family structures and weapons against the intrusions of a modernizing state. (Some Americans at the time, I believe, saw in the Mujahideen and Nicaraguan Contras the equivalent of our Founding Fathers.) Therefore, because Jonah Goldberg and the Taliban share anti-statist and anti-socialist intellectual origins, Jonah Golberg is 'Liberal Taliban'. No?
Art Deco replies: "I actually have never seen Blazing Saddles, bar bits and fragments which were on the televison last summer when I was visiting a family member in a nursing home. Don't remember that scene. The fellow in question I met at the home of a friend, in 1975." It must be nice to have total recall like that. Then again, I guess you've been too busy watching "Birth of a Nation" over and over again.
Don't forget that Goldberg writes that "the white male is the Jew of liberal fascism."... I think he means that both are designated scapegoats, but I cannot speak for him. In one sense, I think you are right. Political anti-semitism is not a signature feature of fascism - a large array of non-fascist movements adopted anti-semitic platforms during the inter-war period. (And I have had the impression from my reading that the anti-semitic legislation issued by the Mussolini government was but a practical accommodation to Hitler, not something truly derivative of the fascist ideology in Italy).
Hector: Because everything you attributed Goldberg as claiming is incorrect. Among other things, when he uses the word "statism", he's talking about the modern state and not the state qua state. I'm sure you know that, for example in America, for the first 200 years or so we had a small central government (except for times during wars). It was largely an administrative state and did not have as its goal justice or equality or fairness. It's only in the past century or so that we've seen this incredible expansion of government in our lives. And by the way, sorry, the Taliban are not libertarians.
Hector: there is a HUGE difference between asserting that the state should promote the common good (a formula that goes at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas) and the modern Hegelian/communist/fascist notion of the "ethical state." The latter has a quasi-religious status, and claims to enbody "the people's will" (Rousseau) or "the movement of history" (Hegel, Marx) or "the nation" (fascism) or "science" (today) in determining what is good for its subjects in every aspect of their individual lives. In other words, it is not one aspect within the life of society, but it claims to BE society in its collective expression.
Perhaps not. The Democrats aren't fascists either. Nevertheless, the Mujahideen were certainly anti-statist, at least as compared to their enemies. Conservatives in the US were in favor of the Mujahideen during the 1980s, so I'm not sure why you are disclaiming them now. My point is that the attempt to distinguish the modern state from the premodern state is incorrect. 'Statist' governments in the 20th and 21st century, whether on the right or the left, often drew inspiration from pre-modern models of the state. E.g. the Argentine Colonels drawing inspiration from the European Middle Ages, Evo Morales and General Velasco drawing inspiration from the Inca Empire, etc. Rousseau, after all, wanted to recreate the lost golden age before private property. Limited government is a feature of traditional Anglo-American culture, as you point out, but has never had much popularity in much of the rest of the world.
SteveMG writes: "I'm sure you know that, for example in America, for the first 200 years or so we had a small central government (except for times during wars). It was largely an administrative state and did not have as its goal justice or equality or fairness. It's only in the past century or so that we've seen this incredible expansion of government in our lives." It's also true that for most of that past century the US has either been at war or on a war footing. (By "war footing" I'm referring to the Cold War, for instance.)
It's only in the past century or so that we've seen this incredible expansion of government in our lives. Hector, you seem to be making an inadvertent argument in favor of government. Unless of course you think the 19th century was preferable to the 20th-21st. Not that government can claim most of the advances made, but it did help provide the stability which made many advances possible. For example, without big bloated government, we wouldn't be able to discuss this issue via computer today.
Is that a fair assessment of your argument? I suppose you are right. He associates Hitler (directly) with the smiley-face icon. He associates 'liberal' with 'fascist' so you are correct that he associates 'liberal' with 'nazi' (as that is a subset of 'fascist'), albeit the association is indirect and attenuated. Fascism is not necessarily genocidal (and non-fascist goverments in Roumania and Vichy France were implicated in the Final Solution by deporting Jews for reasons-of-state) but the sense of association is going to be there so long as fascism is correllated with genocidal tendencies (though is not strictly identified with them). Since it appears Mr. Goldberg is trying to appropriate the rhetorical force of the term 'fascism' for a dubious polemical end, he cannot complain that people take it the way you did.
E.g. the Argentine Colonels drawing inspiration from the European Middle Ages Generals Videla, Viola, Galtieri, & c. were aiming to establish a network of guilds, communes, manorial estates, enfoeffed knights and nobles, &c. after they were done with the Montoneros, the Trotskyists, and Jacobo Timmerman?
That’s it - I’m buying myself a copy ASAP!!!! Many of what are (rightfully) called right wing “hatchet books” can be very useful nonetheless. If this is the case with Goldberg’s book, it will prove to be useful as almost a reference work. If the footnotes and resources are well documented, such books can act as a useful resource for hunting down greater detail and historical fact that supports the general thesis.
Limited government is a feature of traditional Anglo-American culture, as you point out, but has never had much popularity in much of the rest of the world. Never? Constitutional government has been the default in continental Europe for a century-and-a-half, in a selection of Latin American countries from various points in time between 1830 and 1890, and in Japan and India throughout the post-War period.
I think if many of the liberal critics of Goldberg's thesis had read Niebuhr, much of their criticism about the book would change. Those that don't think Goldberg's a neocon pig, mind you. A good healthy dose of Niebuhr would be good for the left today in any event.
Having read Goldberg's book, the main problem with it is that there is literally no political movement outside of of modern American conservatism (and, more specifically, modern American Reaganite Christian movement conservatism) which is a.) not fascist in nature and b.) bad. He manages a discussion of fascism in 1930s America while mentioning exactly once either Charles Lindbergh or Henry Ford as anything even resembling fascist. The relationship of capitalism to fascism remains entirely untouched, the right's concept of "Islamofascism" goes entirely unexplored. The entire point of the book is to redefine the entire history and nature of modern American liberalism as a two-step history from the French Revolution to Woodrow Wilson, ending up with Hillary Clinton. It's not so much the (awful, ignorant) quality of Goldberg's arguments as it is the utter mendacity with which he makes his twin arguments. The first argument is that, quite directly, all "bad" ideologies from the 19th century to present are the result of political liberalism, without failure. One wonders from his writings if a conservative or right-wing movement would ever be capable of any excess or evil, so total is the reverence in which he holds his own beliefs. The second, and perhaps more insidious, argument is that one can draw direct comparisons between between doctrines and ideologies based not on the motivating factors or ultimate direction of the ideologies, but instead on their intermediate goals. It's the "Nazis liked puppies, too" argument writ large. Goldberg's argument is stunningly myopic, blazingly ignorant and almost totally bereft of any actual intellectual rigor or curiosity. You can tell from his writing that he spent most of his four years of research skimming books until he found a liberal or liberal idea somehow reflected in fascist actions and deciding, without further review or thought, that it was yet another gotcha in his growing, persuasive pile of evidence detailing liberal fascism. If you want to save yourself the money, find your state Democratic Party's platform, open it to any page, jab your finger at a sentence and say "fascist". Repeat for a few hours, and you've got the same effect.
Fitz says: "Many of what are (rightfully) called right wing “hatchet books” can be very useful nonetheless. If this is the case with Goldberg’s book, it will prove to be useful as almost a reference work. If the footnotes and resources are well documented, such books can act as a useful resource for hunting down greater detail and historical fact that supports the general thesis." Does this mean Fitz thinks the book might be useful?
1. Since Goldberg is engaging in what amounts to Holocaust denial -- downgrading the term "fascism" so it becomes meaningless, a classic Holocaust-denial technique -- there is no reason to wait to get mad at him; since he is spitting on the graves of fascism's victims in order to score debating points against liberals, he deserves no more serious thought than David Irving. 2. To repeat the obvious points: Goldberg is wrong when he says that fascists were against a different kind of "liberalism" than American liberalism; Mussolini, Hitler and so on specifically denounced the tolerance, pluralism, multiculturalism and cultural freedoms that American liberals believe in. That he ignores this and focuses instead on meaningless parallels -- Hitler believed that the state could do good, so do liberals -- is reprehensible. And of course Goldberg hasn't responded to Niewert's obvious point: there are people in America who actually identify themselves as Fascists, and they are right-wingers. (No, all right-wingers are not fascists. But all actual self-declared fascist movements in America are right-wing.) 3. And since it is conservatives who want to use the all-powerful instruments of the state to make everything wonderful, e.g. banning abortion to enforce their idea of morality, or torturing people to make us "safe" and "protected" -- the idea that liberals are more statist than conservatives is not borne out. The only instances where conservatives support freedom is the freedom of elites at the expense of others; so conservatives support a health-care system that increases the freedom of the rich by decreasing the freedom of everyone else. Goldberg's assumption that liberals are anti-freedom is hilariously out of date; he's in denial about the fact that he's part of a movement, American conservatism, whose entire purpose is to use the state to limit freedom.
I have friends who, with great seriousness, will routinely chastise the New York Times for being too conservative. You know the type -- your given tenured professor who has been lecturing stridently for years now, in class, about the criminal Bushilter junta, etc. I welcome efforts like Goldberg's to counter such rhetoric, and perhaps engender some self-reflection. Unquestionably, the likes of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini would be more at home on the Left of today than on the Right. They both despised capitalism, free markets, or anything close to laissez-faire. They viewed democracy as contemptibly weak and impotent. They were big government people, seeking to order their societies around a powerful central government that subordinated individual freedoms in order to win their struggle for . How you fill that blank in is really the core difference between national socialism, communism, or any flavor of socialism. Hitler and Mussolini filled in that blank with a romantic nostalgia -- either the long denied birthright of the Aryan race, or restoring the lost glory that was Rome. In that sense alone, which I'd argue is arbitrary and insignificant, can their regimes be termed reactionary or even slightly conservative by today's standa |
Go careful there, Ross! That sort of oldfashioned critical thinking looks mighty liberal these days. What next - examining the Bush administration on the basis of its record?
Posted by nickzi | January 13, 2008 9:47 AM