Liberal Fascism Isn't about Fascism

from OurFuture.org:



Liberal Fascism Isn't about Fascism
By Sam Boyd

January 15th, 2008 - 8:03pm ET


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism (yes, yes that supposedly makes my opinion worthless) but I have been reading Goldberg's blog of the same name and I think liberal commentators have been basically missing the point of his project. You can argue, and be right, that the whole concept of "liberal fascism" is self-contradictory and silly, but if you do that you're playing Goldberg's game.

Goldberg reminds me of a friend of mine with a taste for arguments about philosophy. His secret was that he cheated. He'd argue some seemingly absurd premise but then retreat to a definition of a key word that was so different from a reasonable one that it was unrecognizable. You'd try and keep in mind his weird vocabulary, but the words maintained the force of their original meaning and it was hard to keep your argument straight. A similar thing is going on with Goldberg.

Goldberg, I think, doesn't really give a damn about the historical meaning of the word fascism. Sure he'd argue about that with you and draw you into a five day long discussion of what Mussolini's economic policy says about his place on the political spectrum, but then you're just arguing about definitions. You're right. It doesn't matter. What Goldberg is really trying to do is promote a longstanding conservative shibboleth--the idea that modern liberalism is all about restricting our freedom. This was a common talking point for Southerners during the civil rights movement and it enjoys a healthy life today in arguments against "special rights" for gay people, in the endless moaning about how "political correctness," and in so many other areas.

Goldberg wants to give that longstanding belief a clear and obviously negative name and what could be better for that purpose than "fascism." What we should be doing is explaining why liberalism is the true protector of our freedom.

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/liberal-fascism-isnt-about-fascism

You have captured his method & style exactly.

. . . is the only reason why Goldberg can write and publish his book, an irony that seems to have escaped him.

on to his political enemies.

Liberalism is about opening up opportunities and unshackling the body politic from traditions. You can be anti-tax liberal (like Thomas Jefferson) or big government liberal (like Harry Truman). You can be a warrior liberal (like Teddy Roosevelt) or a pacifist liberal (like Henry Thoreau). But they all share the values of openness and progress, of valuing rational public policy over culturally traditional public practices.

Fascism requires the ideation of popular culture and the suppression of reason. It's about using emotional appeals to limit progress and constrain rather then liberate oppressed or hated cultural subgroups.

You can't have liberal fascism any more than you could have a dry ocean. One term negates the other. You can have left-wing fascism: anarchy, socialism, or various forms of populism (Huey Long is a scary American example of that).

from what i understand (or believe) being a liberal is about respecting other peoples a)respect of the bill of rights 2) respect of privacy 3)respect of human rights

and facism is about a)ultra control (money, land, media, power, speech) b) laying blame on minorities (ie scape goat for all that is, was and will be wrong)

He's a moron. He makes Bush look like an intellectual titan.

I think the redefinition is critical. If people can be convinced that fascism means something other than what it means, then fascist ideas can be called something other than fascist ideas, and the people who were convinced of the original redefinition won't recognize them for what they are. It's a rebranding effort.