Slate's Bizbox
books: Reading between the lines.

Am I a Fascist?Jonah Goldberg's tendentious history of liberalism.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 28, 2008, at 7:49 AM ET
Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism

Why did Jonah Goldberg write Liberal Fascism? To find out, you must wade through 391 pages of tendentious scholarship. A mighty jackbooted procession—Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Herbert Marcuse, John F. Kennedy, Saul Alinsky, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton—goose-steps across the page to illustrate Goldberg's apparent belief that, with the exception of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and everything published in National Review (where Goldberg is contributing editor), every word previously written or spoken in favor of mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. On Page 392, though, Goldberg emerges from his dusty carrel and gives it to us straight:

Ever since I joined the public conversation as a conservative writer, I've been called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident of the truth of their ill-informed prejudices. Responding to this slander is, as a point of personal privilege alone, a worthwhile endeavor.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Among the liberals I know, you don't, in fact, hear the word fascist bandied about much, and if somebody blurts it out to describe contemporary conservatism, the most common reaction is a rolling of the eyes. It's a provocation rather than an argument, much overused by the left during the 1960s and now mostly absent from mainstream political discourse. The only exception would be the term Islamofascism, adopted mainly (though not entirely) by the right to describe the reactionary views of violent Muslims intoxicated with hatred for the West. Weirdly, that word doesn't appear once in Liberal Fascism.

Before proceeding further, I should disclose that previously I've written about Liberal Fascism as a publishing phenomenon, speculating from the promotional material that Goldberg—who, when he was an editor for National Review Online, fired Ann Coulter for writing about Muslims, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"—was now adopting Coulter's uncivil, ranting style as his own. That got under Goldberg's apparently thin skin, and in a recent interview he called me a "jabbering fraction of a man" for making the comparison, an outburst that went a long way toward proving my point. (When Coulter ran afoul of Goldberg and National Review Editor Rich Lowry, she called them "girly boys.") So did Goldberg's provocative book title and his red-meat chapter headings: "Franklin Roosevelt's Fascist New Deal," "The 1960s: Fascism Takes to the Streets," "Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism," etc.

On the other hand, it's inconceivable that Coulter would put as much effort into one of her screeds as Goldberg has clearly put into his. For the most part, Goldberg lays out his argument knowledgeably and calmly. He seems to have done his homework, which was not inconsiderable. He means to be taken seriously by people who care about ideas. All right, then. Let's take him seriously.

Goldberg's argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn't news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers Party"). Also true, and also known to most educated people.

Goldberg then points out that the wartime presidency of the progressive Woodrow Wilson curtailed free speech to a frightening degree and argues that this had something to do with Wilson's admiration for Otto von Bismarck, who fathered both the modern welfare state and the fascist Kulturkampf. According to Goldberg, Wilson's belief in an expansive role for government (example: creation of the Federal Trade Commission) was linked to his less-admired taste for government repression (example: the Palmer raids). Well, maybe. A simpler explanation for the latter would be that throughout American history, presidents have tended to trample on the Bill of Rights during times of unrest, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was signed into law by President John Adams 17 years before Bismarck was born.

"Woodrow Wilson," Goldberg declares, "was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator." That would be news to Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Massachusetts Republican who successfully opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations. Throughout Liberal Fascism, the respect-hungry scholar wrestles with the invective-spouting provocateur. Here Goldberg is, for instance, trying very hard not to call Franklin Roosevelt a fascist:

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

The Clintons play right into Goldberg's hands. Remember Hillary's dictum, "It takes a village to raise a child?" That is too easily interpreted -- especially given Hillary's oleaginous self-righteousness -- to mean that parents can, and should, be overruled when they contravene the village's will.

Or Bill's short-lived surgeon general, Jocelyn Elders, who said, "every child [should be] a planned and wanted child." Being interpreted, what can that mean but that children who are unplanned, unwanted, or both should be aborted?

The smiley-Hitler face on Goldberg's book is, in fact, a bit of PR genius: If fascism ever does come to America, it will come For Our Own Good, and those who bring it will smile unceasingly.

--vepxistqaosani

(To reply, click here.)

I'm sorry to disappoint Mr. Noah, but a lot of very calm and normal progressives consider the United States to have become a fascist society. The Republican pro-corporatist class is blatantly fascist, while the Democratic pro-corporatist class has instincts that lead it in two directions... but certainly since Bill Clinton genuine anti-fascist beliefs and actions have been on the decline.

Fascism combines corporate/governmental alliance, along with ethno-national and religious appeals, along with demonization of external and internal enemies.... along with suspension of the rule of law. In what sense are we not now a fascist country and is the Bush administration not now a fascist regime.

Elections? Oh really? Democracy was thwarted in 2000, and probably (we don't know for sure) in 2004. Even under President Obama, who will be in charge? The President and Congress? Or the corporations that set their agendas?

No, we live in a fascist society, and its power is evident in the unwillingness of powerful institutions, media and commentators like Noah to acknowledge this reality.

Fascism isn't far away and scary, and it doesn't always involve jack boots. It's right here and now, and plenty scary if you take the time to see it. As the author said, "when fascism comes to America it will be carrying a cross and wearing a flag"... but he might also have added that it will be managed by flag waving corporations like Wal Mart, Exxon and Verizon, who view the government as an extension of themselves.

Fascism is real, and the term well describes America today.

--RightNow

(To reply, click here.)

By and large Conservatives write books these days to amuse each other, not to actually promote ideas or present coherent arguments for policy prescriptions. And most certainly not to convince the unconvinced. It's something of a cliquey parlor game, that's all. By that token, Liberal Fascism has all the gravitas of a book of tawdry limericks, all of which start and end with a different letter of the alphabet. Its argument is as convincing as one of those mathematical "proofs" that shows 2 = 4, thanks to a little division by zero slight of hand that goes unnoticed by the innumerate and uninitiated, but which elicits little more than a yawn from anyone with more than rudimentary knowledge of the subject.

The sad thing, of course, is that the end result of "proving" that liberals are the true inheritors of Hitler and Mussolini's political legacy, you reduce the essence of Fascism to such commonplace ideas as Keynesian market stimulus and the promotion of organic foods, while aspects such as the ideology's racism and militarism are seen as trivial, secondary offspring.

--dsf3g

(To reply, click here.)

Yes, we've used the word "fascist" far more than is warranted. On the other hand, conservative pundits have a way of referring to any idea that is to the left of Ron Paul as "socialist." It's gotten so bad that I don't think either side really knows what it's talking about any more.

It sounds to me like Goldberg, like so many other pundits, would rather investigate the motives behind various political movements or philosophies (in his case, focusing on the Left) than the movements themselves. This is the great bane of public discourse, in my opinion. We have stopped debating the tenets of political ideals; instead, we attack candidates and parties for more personal foibles and for supposed ulterior motives.

Politics gets complicated but it really shouldn't be. Government has a tendency to overstep its authority; that's the natural progression for all governments throughout history, especially in the modern, post-revolutionary period. And all government authority can be taken to abusive levels. It doesn't matter what side of the debate you start from, Left or Right; both sides are capable of great evil.

I obviously haven't read the book, but despite the scholarship involved, this Liberal Fascism sounds extremely shallow.

--Anse

(To reply, click here.)

(1/28)