Liberal Facism?

[Sheepdog]

I'm adding this book by Jonah Goldberg to my wish list:

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

...

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Interesting thesis. Though it might not be quite the same thing, I wonder if he also brings Stalin's totalitarianism into the analysis as well.

[Stabbytheclown]

It sounds like cherry picking tiny similarities and ignoring the main features to redefine fascism as "everything I don't like". Basically the Big Book of Godwin:

[Sheepdog]

Have you read it then?

The irony is, if I understand the author right, his accusation against the left is that that is precisely what they done ("cherry picking tiny similarities and ignoring the main features...") to redefine fascism as a right wing ideology.

but I do share your concern about Godwin. If the book is simply a Guilt By Association, it'd be less than worthless. on the other hand, if he does identify key ideological cues in the modern left that share their origins with the totalitarianism of the Nazis and Fascists, it should serve as a warning to keep the power plays of the left in check.

[Stabbytheclown]

Have you read it then?

The irony is, if I understand the author right, his accusation against the left is that that is precisely what they done ("cherry picking tiny similarities and ignoring the main features...") to redefine fascism as a right wing ideology.

but I do share your concern about Godwin. If the book is simply a Guilt By Association, it'd be less than worthless. on the other hand, if he does identify key ideological cues in the modern left that share their origins with the totalitarianism of the Nazis and Fascists, it should serve as a warning to keep the power plays of the left in check.

I've not read it, I was just going by the brief in the op, seemingly just trying to find snippets of approval from contemporary liberals and unspecified policies of today that the Nazis might have liked.

I certainly don't think calling them right wing is cherry picking. Strong patriotism, fear/hatred of communism and unions, an aggressive foreign policy, harsh penalties for lawbreakers and the promotion of what they believe to traditional values (family unit good homosexuals bad etc) are main features of fascism and modern right wing ideals.

However, while I would describe them as right wing, I would not describe them as conservatives as we would use the term. Likewise, I would call Stalin's Russia left wing, but to call them "liberal" is ludicrous.

[PolarBeer]

I'd have suggested that fascism has little to do with the 'left' or 'right,' but is rather just an authoritarian form of government which places the rights of the individual below the rights of the state. Essentially it's the opposite of Libertarianism, and comes in left and right wing strains, just as Libertarianism does. I suppose I'm just reflecting the Political Compass model in that, but I think it's a good model.

At any rate, it's good to see pundits trying to fling more inflammatory rhetoric at the various parties, rather than you know, discussing issues. Name calling is always so much more fun than intelligent political discourse! :ahem:

[Meta Knight]

At any rate, it's good to see pundits trying to fling more inflammatory rhetoric at the various parties, rather than you know, discussing issues. Name calling is always so much more fun than intelligent political discourse! :ahem:
Oh yeah, that's totally the impression I got from the quoted portion. :ahem:

[norwegen]

I'd have suggested that fascism has little to do with the 'left' or 'right,' but is rather just an authoritarian form of government which places the rights of the individual below the rights of the state.Hmm. I see. Like liberalism.
Name calling is always so much more fun than intelligent political discourse! :ahem:You'd think, then, that liberals might laugh and smile once in a while, as they so freely attach the name fascist to conservatives.

:teeth:

[Paintbucket]

Fascist just means a supporter of big government. It often gets tagged to right-wing large governments, but it could go either way. It's authoritarian nonetheless. Stalin and Hitler could sit down and agree on lots of things about government as long as you kept them from mentioning economics. So yeah, it's possible to have liberal fascism.

Personally, the idea of big government scares me. I like my freedoms thank you very much.

[PolarBeer]

Hmm. I see. Like liberalism.
What particular aspects of liberalism are you thinking of? (We're probably getting into a 'classical liberalism' vs 'modern liberalism' debate here.) Is taxation the main bugbear?

You'd think, then, that liberals might laugh and smile once in a while, as they so freely attach the name fascist to conservatives.

:teeth:I've certainly seen people labelling neoconservatives as being fascists. While that's over the top, I'd say that the current neocons are more authoritarian than the Democratic party candidates I've seen.

But yes, the more left-wing (that is to less, slightly less right wing) American pundits have gradually become more vocal over the Bush years. I suspect that's at least in part a reaction to the aggressive right wing pundits who have been working so hard to vilify the word 'liberal' over the last eight years. The hostility of the more right-wing pundits in the US really put me off American conservatism, and in many respects, I can be a pretty conservative guy. That said, I suspect the conservatism I found appealing had pretty much dissapeared by the 80's...

[PolarBeer]

Oh yeah, that's totally the impression I got from the quoted portion. :ahem:

In my worldview, attempting to associate people on either side with (in)famous fascists does not constitute "intelligent political discourse." :teeth:

[norwegen]

What particular aspects of liberalism are you thinking of? (We're probably getting into a 'classical liberalism' vs 'modern liberalism' debate here.)Modern liberalism. See the OP; it's about "today’s liberals." Is taxation the main bugbear?Perhaps. It's one of the major bugbears, anyway. The purpose of taxation is to support government, not individuals. Charity is not a natural function of government.

Welfare/collectivism/interdependence is a concept native to both liberalism and fascism.

[Timothy Leary]

Ya know, not all elements of fascism were bad.
They had good economies.
But they were run by racist, egotistical morons.
If you had taken out the imperialism, bloated egotism, and racism - it might have worked for a while.

[SteveF]

Here's a scathing review in American Conservative:

http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html

[PolarBeer]

"That Nazism and contemporary liberalism both promote healthy living is as meaningless a finding as that bloody marys and martinis may both be made with gin. Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum."

Ouch! Rather as we feared then.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a scathing review in American Conservative:

http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.htmlI'm shocked! Goldberg writes a book of nonsense. Say it ain't so!

[norwegen]

I'm shocked! Goldberg writes a book of nonsense. Say it ain't so!Oh, but it's true. That paleocon op-ed piece said so.

[Ryokan]

I don't care what paleo-cons think, but I just think it is funny Goldberg wrote an book that is just a giant example of Godwin's law. Sad.

[norwegen]

I don't care what paleo-cons think, but I just think it is funny Goldberg wrote an book that is just a giant example of Godwin's law. Sad.You realize that Goldberg's book is in print, right? The probabilty that comparisons to Nazism will appear in it was never less than one.

[Ryokan]

You realize that Goldberg's book is in print, right? The probabilty that comparisons to Nazism will appear in it was never less than one.

Basically what I am trying to say is liberals are not fascists, and it is annoying thing when a political opponent calls everyone they don't like fascist. Goldberg is really showing his liberal roots by reflexively going for fascist as a means of attack.

[hamandcheese]

Goldberg's book is somewhat of a oxymoronic non-sequitur. He makes two grave mistakes: A) thinking pseudo-socialism is equal to fascism (Bertrand Russell would scoff too, being a socialist and a fierce opponent to Fascism simultaneously) and B) thinking that progressives (like Hillary) who may or may not have fascist sentiments (vague, private sentiments) represent the majority of liberals -- or any liberals at all for that matter, because really the leftists who favour socialism are more precisely called "socialist progressives".

Goldberg makes an additional mistake by being completely out of touch with history. Nevertheless, I agree with his premise to a degree. I don't think socialist progressives are "fascists" or anything near fascists, but I do believe they have a totalitarian element, which is expressed slightly more moderately in strictly liberal values like gun control, taxes, social security, welfare, affirmative action, etc. I more-or-less concur but in a more modest nature, and only on the premise, and not by his reasoning per se. I just sympathize with Classical Liberal and libertarian angst.