|
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | 
 enlarge | Author: Jonah Goldberg
Publisher: Doubleday
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy New: $14.75
You Save: $13.20 (47%)
New (43) Used (16) from $13.59
Rating:  296 reviews
Sales Rank: 160
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 496
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.6
Dimensions (in): 9.5 x 6.4 x 1.6
ISBN: 0385511841
Dewey Decimal Number: 320.533
EAN: 9780385511841
Publication Date: January 8, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: BRAND NEW - EXCEPTIONAL VALUE - EXCELLENT BUY - QUICK SHIP - SECURE PACKAGING
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?
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.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
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.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 291 more reviews...
 "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made" - Franklin D. Roosevelt January 8, 2008
2249 out of 2822 found this review helpful
And boy, does Jonah Goldberg have himself some enemies.
It was inevitable that the review section for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" would degenerate into the Mother of all Flame Wars. The advance dislike for this book simmered for months, and now the floodgates for negative reviews are open. I'd advise all potential readers of this book to bear in mind how few of the negative reviews appear to reflect a reading of the book.
For those willing to give Goldberg the chance, he offers the following thesis: that the label fascist has its roots in the governing philosophies of Italy's National Fascist Party and Germany's National Socialist (Nazi) Party. He argues that there has been a false duality created between the Soviet Socialists of the USSR and the socialists united under the fascists in Italy and Germany. He argues that the totalitarian impulse, the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms, is the core uniting principle behind these movements, and he argues that the ongoing home of such statism is in what has come to be known as the "liberal" politics of the modern progressive movement. As you can imagine, that doesn't sit very well with the targets of his argument (hence the rain of 1-star reviews).
I'd encourage open minded readers of all backgrounds to read Goldberg's book and address his arguments. I find his conversational and somewhat informal style to be witty and readable. That said, longtime Goldberg fans should know that this is not a book-length "G-File" (the hip and irreverent column he wrote for National Review Online). This is a serious scholarly work, and it deserves to be read and judged as such. Goldberg is attempting to right a historical injustice. This book is not attempting, as many seem to think, to say that all liberals are closet Nazis, but rather that, contrary to popular misconception, it is not conservatism, but liberalism, that traces its roots to the fascists. In some ways it is a book-length extension of the question conservatives sometimes pose to liberals: "If you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?" (That platform is handily provided in the appendix.) After Goldberg's book, this question is much harder to simply shrug off.
Still, one doesn't need nearly 600 citations just to allow conservatives to say "I'm rubber, you're glue" the next time they are called a fascist. Goldberg argues that our focus on the atrocities committed by fascists in Germany obscures the fact that the fascist drive is, to a degree, universal in modern politics. The heritage and institutions of America lead it to manifest itself in a different form here. Whether it is the smothering embrace of the "It Takes a Village" mommy state or, to a lesser degree, the big-government, "compassionate conservatism" of Bush, fascism in the U.S. is well-intention, "smiley face" fascism, but it still looks first to the state, last to the individual.
In the end, that's what I liked best about this book. Yes, it's great to have a 5-pound rebuttal to the next person who tries to use "fascist" as an epithet to end criticism of a liberal program. However, what comes through in the end is not so much Goldberg's hatred of fascism, but his love of liberty. Fascism in all its forms is the enemy of liberty, and recognizing it for what it is will always be a prerequisite for stopping it. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" clears away decades of obfuscation to allow that recognition in both the past and present day politics. Those who continue to fight for individual freedom will enjoy and appreciate this book.
A sharp look at the seeds of the American Left January 9, 2008
896 out of 1418 found this review helpful
This well researched book reveals what many historians have known for decades - and not spoken about. Namely, the direct connection between European Fascism and the political philosophy of the American Left. What this book reveals is that Communism, Fascism, Socialism and the American Left are all versions of the same general political philosophy and that they have for decades stood in direct opposition to the founding principals of our nation: individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government power.
Jonah seriously tries to reveal the truth rather than obscure it January 10, 2008
314 out of 475 found this review helpful
Jonah Goldberg's first full length literary effort "Liberal Fascism" carefully examines the ways in which the history of fascism diverges from the commonly held myths on the subject. While it doesn't read like a "homework assignment", neither is it typical of his other work where he uses his acerbic wit to delight his fans on the right and enrage his opponents on the left. This is no Ann Coulter book; it's not designed to get anyone's goat. It's a serious work that clearly demonstrates a continuous line of logic from Italian Fascism, and German "National Socialism", straight to the American Left of today.
He so effectively challenges such a fundamental piece of liberal dogma, that his critics on the left will no doubt accuse him of heresy. But such a substantive work is not going to be dismissed so easily. In the end they will have no choice but to actually read the book and attempt to critique it on its own terms. I don't envy them their task. It's such a well documented work that's going to take a true philosophical contortionist to refute it without many obvious and undermining logical contradictions.
By treating the subject seriously he's raising the dialog between left and right, even if some would prefer it otherwise. And years from now this book will be viewed as a cornerstone moment in the political conversation between the left and right. By adjusting the placement of the current political labels, he's revealed a little more of the truth rather than obscuring it, as his more disingenuous critics will certainly claim.
It's a great effort and well worth the read by both his fans and detractors.
Incendiary title but an absolute must read! January 9, 2008
234 out of 363 found this review helpful
Goldberg is certainly not the first one to make this argument; Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Misses all made a similar case a generation or two ago, but Goldberg's book is funny and highly readable. I finished my copy in the airport and the plane the day I bought it.
If history is written by the "winners", then the history of fascism has been written by those who have historically claimed to "fight fascism", namely Marxists and the left. Ignoring the often forgotten chapter of history when the leftist Popular Front allied themselves with fascist Germany, the left has always claimed that they alone have fought the good fight against fascism and they use the fascist club to beat their ideological opponents with. Look at recent bestsellers from Naomi Wolf and Chris Hedges and it is evident that this club of "fascism" is still used with great effect. After all, one of fascisms biggest targets were communists and conservatives don't like communists, so conservatives must be fascists. It's a typical "Logical Fallacy", but considering the ability of most of today's left to come with anything resembling reasoned thinking and a ideology still mired in discredited mid 18th century Marxist though, it shouldn't surprise.
In his book, Goldberg takes a good stab at a more thoughtful and objective look at fascism, and its real historical roots. Its not about whether Hitler was a vegetarian, or if Nazi Germany had welfare. Its about how these two ideological cousins, fascism and leftism are similar in both form and function and how Fascism grew out of leftists and leftist movements of the late 19th and early 20th century, who were looking for an alternate path power. If Fascism and leftism look so similar in form and function, its because one was built off the other. Fascism developed as a fascio, a form of radical socialism. While opposing communism and social democracy, fascism was rooted in radical leftist dogma, including the theories of those such as Gabriele D'Annunzio (a former anarchist), Alceste de Ambris and or former socialist Benito Mussolini. Both fascism and leftism in general share as a prime goal collectivization for the common good of the people and the use of totalitarian power and violence to achieve this.
This is by no means a new argument, but its one that challenges the long held conventional wisdom of the demagogues who have appropriated the definition of fascism, and its time to remake that definition into what it really was.
Should be read along with Joshua Muravchik's, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism for more background.
The truth hurts January 19, 2008
137 out of 202 found this review helpful
This book raises important lines of intellectual inquiry that have been ignored or repressed both in popular culture and academia. I'm sure much of that stems from well earned embarrassment in the aftermath of World War II
For me, the basic premises of this book were not entirely new. F.A. Hayek certainly made it clear in his The Road to Serfdom how Fascist and Nazi ideas grew out of socialism. Hayek also makes clear in his The Counter Revolution of Science where all of these ideologies have their roots in the French Revolution. Contrary to the 1 star reviews, this book is on solid historical and intellectual ground.
Nor is the discussion of Woodrow Wilson's WWI wartime dictatorship new to me. Properly taught U.S. Constitutional History or Constitutional Law classes certainly cover the Sedition and Espionage Acts. Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in the Schenk case caused me to think, one afternoon in 1969. what might have happened to Jane Fonda had Wilson rather than Johnson or Nixon been President during the Vietnam War. I think she would have been hanged.
Speaking of Holmes, don't forget that one of the great scenes in the movie Judgment at Nuremberg is where the attorney defending the Nazi collaborator quotes from Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell.
Nor is the idea new that the National Recovery Administration (the other NRA) was a fascist undertaking. The Blue Eagle lives on at the beginning of movies from the early 1930's. I recall documentaries on the New Deal with newsreels from the 1930's with marching bands and showgirl reviews. The Nazi's had a better filmmaker but the idea was the same.
What accounts for all the foaming at the mouth over this book? During the 1950's, many academicians had an embarrassing and dangerous paper trail of bad ideas behind them. By the 1960's, since Mussolini and Hitler had been humiliatingly defeated, they were past history. Who cares? Castro, Guevara, Ho, and Mao were all the rage. Political theory classes became all about the professor's whimsy rather than a discipline.
The result is that many speak about politics today with no knowledge or understanding of the origins of their ideas. When so confronted, they become enraged.
To Goldberg's credit, he does not spare "conservatives" from his irony either. George W., Pat Buchanan have expressed ideas and programs that are essentially Liberal Fascism as well.
Yesterday, I listened to a Los Angeles AM radio news station that purports to report business news. The stock market was down 50 points on top of other declines. The President was declaring a stimulus package. The host was breathlessly taking phone calls on what people should do with their stocks! What to do with that mortgage? How do we save our economy? Who is going to help us?
Good grief. It occurred to me that not only does the media believe in Liberal Fascism but creating a panic boosts ratings and the government action gives them something "serious" with which to fill up their time. And if people are panicked into selling good assets at steep discounts, what is their freedom worth to them?
Update: I had to allow some of the ideas in this book to percolate and give them some more thought. Jonah Goldberg makes a number of connections that were new to me. Most accounts I've read of the Progressive movement were favorable treatments. The Progressives were civic minded citizens cleaning up the corruption of the political parties and big industries. Most of these historical accounts are long on the practical reforms and there is no diminishing the importance of them in changing American politics(direct primary, initiative, referendum, local nonpartisanship.) But the intellectual influence on the Progressives of Nietzsche, Hegel, and Comte are not commonly discussed in these event driven narratives. From Nietzsche comes the idea that God is dead therefore conventional morality should be thrown out, from Hegel comes historicism or the idea that history is a march of progress, and from Comte comes the idea that society is like a giant machine and is suitable for social engineering. I oversimplify, of course, but all of them lead to the destruction of individual rights in favor of the power of the state.
I was also not aware of the influence of William James and his ideas of pragmatism on Georges Sorel and later on Italian fascism. From James comes the idea of the will to believe, and when combined with Nietzsche's will to power becomes the basis for the big lie. This unaccountable naked power combined with an amoral regard for human rights and liberty along with delusions of inevitability led to much of the misery of the twentieth century.
I knew of Woodrow Wilson's contempt for some aspects of our Constitution, but not the extent. The claim of the modern Democratic Party to be successors to the party of Jefferson is of course an intellectual fraud but that fraud didn't begin with Franklin Roosevelt. It began with Wilson. Wilson despised the separation of powers and now appears to have desired a living evolving constitution rather than one that limited the powers of government.
Jonah Goldberg has written an important much needed book.
|
|
|
| |
