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

(Continued from page 2)

[Update, Feb. 1: Goldberg replies here. Among Goldberg's key points:

1.) "I haven't liked Tim Noah for years." I never meant to suggest that Goldberg only started disliking me recently. It actually dates back to 2000, when I noted in a column that Goldberg had appropriated, without citation or correction, some patriotic but factually challenged spam about the Founding Fathers. Myself, I reserve personal dislike for people I've actually met personally, and I've never met Goldberg.

2.) "Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this a complete nonsequitur?" The reference is to my noting that Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge defeated President Woodrow Wilson's attempt to put the United States in the League of Nations. What Goldberg is missing is that if the U.S. Senate was able to defeat Wilson on his absolute highest priority, then he couldn't have been much of a fascist. Fascists wield more power than that.

3.) "Using the word 'objectively' is simply not objectively Marxist (was Orwell a Marxist?)" It's true that during World War II Orwell called pacifists "objectively pro-fascist." But he came to regret this usage as the "propaganda trick" that it is:

We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are "objectively" aiding the Nazis: and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. ... This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions. ... The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult.

4.) "There's ample evidence [Franco] wasn't even a fascist, but simply a strongman." Technically, no one discussed in Goldberg's book except Mussolini is an authentic Fascist. But Franco meets the standard-usage definition more than adequately. Goose-stepping soldiers? Check. Suppressor of personal freedoms? Check. Slaughterer of enemies real and imagined? Check. Slave labor? Check. Allied with Hitler and Mussolini? Check (though Spain* stayed neutral in World War II). Pathologically Brutalist architecture? Check. (See Fallen, Valley of) Goldberg has an interest in downplaying Franco's fascism (and scarcely mentions him in his book) because Francoism lacked the socialist roots that for Goldberg are a defining characteristic of fascism. Others have downplayed Franco's fascism, but that's mainly out of embarrassment that after the war he became a U.S. ally.

5.) "I am unaware of NR ever advocating a Franco-style regime in the United States." Well gee, thanks for that. The hedge implicit in "I am unaware of" is mildly discomfiting, but lets assume that's a rhetorical flourish and not an expression of honest doubt.

Correction, Feb. 1, 2008: An earlier version of this column stated, erroneously, that Mussolini's Italy also stayed neutral during World War II. In fact, Italy was allied with Germany and Japan until July 1943, when Mussolini was removed from power by King Victor Emmanuel II. At that time, Italy signed an armistice with the Allies; eventually it joined the war on the Allies' side. Mussolini escaped to Northern Italy, then under German occupation, and ran a puppet state there until April 1945, at which time he was captured and killed by Italian communists. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

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)