Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: liberal fascism, fascist moment, fascist themes, New Deal, World War, United States (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny. (Jan. 8)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Michael Mann

National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny "fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not "evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve the problems of modern society.

Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist party programs contained active social welfare policies to be implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?

The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.

What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of the time were proud, "principled" -- as they saw it -- violence and authoritarianism. Fascists took their model of governance from their experience as soldiers and officers in World War I. They believed that disciplined violence, military comradeship and obedience to leaders could solve society's problems. Goldberg finds similarities between fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism -- and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists, communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and totalitarianism.

It is hard to find American counterparts, especially among liberals. Father Coughlin and Huey Long (discussed by Goldberg) were tempted by a proto-fascist authoritarian populism in the 1930s. Some white Southerners (not discussed) embraced violence and authoritarianism, as did the Weathermen and the Black Panthers (discussed) and rightist militias (not discussed). Neocons (not discussed) today endorse militarism. Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that is what both conservatives and socialists usually say. To assert that the Social Security Act or Medicare shows a leaning toward totalitarianism is ridiculous. The United States, along with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon and Northwestern European world, has been protected from significant fascist influences by the shared commitment of liberals, conservatives and social democrats to democracy. Fascism is not an American, British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand vice. It only spread significantly in one-half of Europe, with some lesser influence in China, Japan, South America and South Africa. Today it is alive in very few places.

A few of Goldberg's assaults make some minimal sense; others are baffling. He culminates with an attack on Hillary Clinton. He quotes from a 1993 college commencement address of hers: "We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves." Such vacuous politician-speak could come from any centrist, whether Republican or Democrat. But Goldberg bizarrely says it embodies "the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century." Is he serious? He then quotes briefly from her book It Takes A Village. "The village," she wrote, "can no longer be defined as a place on the map, or a list of people or organizations, but its essence remains the same: it is the network of values and relationships that support and affect our lives." One may question whether that is a profound definition or a banal one, but does it deserve Goldberg's comment that here "the concept of civil society is grotesquely deformed"? Whatever Sen. Clinton's weaknesses, she is neither a totalitarian nor an enemy of civil society.

In an apparent attempt at balance, Goldberg indulges in very mild and brief criticism of conservatives who are tempted by compassionate (i.e., social) conservatism, though here he uniquely refrains from using the f-word. In the book's final pages, he reveals his neo-liberalism (though he does not use the term). Since neo-liberalism, with its insistence on unfettered global trade and minimal government regulation of economic and social life, merely restates 19th-century laissez-faire, it is in fact the only contemporary political philosophy that significantly pre-dates both socialism and fascism. Unlike modern liberalism or modern conservatism, it shares not even a remote family resemblance with them. That is the only sense I can make of his overall argument.

But a final word of advice. If you want to denigrate the Democrats' health care plans or Al Gore's environmental activism, try the word "socialism." That is tried and tested American abuse. "Fascism" will merely baffle Americans -- and rightly so.

Copyright 2008, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 496 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday; 1 edition (January 8, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385511841
• ISBN-13: 978-0385511841
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.6 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (501 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,169 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #2 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political Doctrines > Fascism
  #5 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Systems Of Government
  #15 in	Books > Nonfiction > Politics > History & Theory

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

499 of 605 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally Someone Has Documented the Link between Wilson's "Progressive" Ideas and Fascism, August 30, 2008

By	David M. Dougherty (Arkansas) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Amazon Verified Purchase

First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.

This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.

The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.

The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.

The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.

He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.

The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.

The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.

Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.

So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demagogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.

Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.

2,602 of 3,215 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made" - Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 8, 2008

By	David McCune "self-deprecating and proud of it" (Tacoma, WA) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase

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.

21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Smile = This is for Your Own Good, June 25, 2009

By	Woodlandtrails - See all my reviews

This review is from: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change (Paperback)

Liberal Fascism is a book more frightening than any thriller. Woodrow Wilson was awful. I never heard about his abusive tactics in my history classes.

Rugged cowboys and explorers are always thought of as "independent" type people and independent thought is associated with the right. People working "collectively" for each other and sharing is a left progressive view. Totalitarianism is part of the happy faced fascism (hence the cover of this book) because totally everything is done for "our" good. Again a LEFT idea. But the book bashes the so called Left and Right for both being Fascist which is correct. The Constitution is being buried.

Liberal Fascism defines TOTALITARIAN "views EVERYTHING as POLITICAL and holds that ANY ACTION BY THE STATE is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for ALL ASPECTS of LIFE, including our health, and well-being and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and actions, whether by force or though regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objective. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."

So does the definition fit?

The residential home foreclosure mess was caused by too much regulation by Congress and Presidents Jimmy Carter/HW Bush and Clinton) which interfered with "prudent home lending FINANCIAL qualifications". Residential homes became ARTIFICIALLY HIGH PRICED (a bubble) because millions of financially unqualified people (some single owner/some house flippers owning several and some buy and hold multiple home buyer speculators) were allowed into the buying pool causing a sellers market as there were too many buyers wanting homes than homes to sell. The government should not allow mortgage discrimination based on sex, race, where someone lives, etc. which is why the 1968 Fair Housing Act, 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) were enacted. But government should allow mortgage FINANCIAL discrimination if a person cannot afford a home. Instead of bolstering one of the existing regulations if mortgage discrimination was still happening, in 1977 Jimmy Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act which snowballed into future presidential banking regulations by HW Bush and Clinton which resulted in lowering mortgage qualifications. The greed of ACORN groups picketing/suing banks to make unwise loans and forcing banks to give ACORN money to in effect stop picketing, the greed of banks (including Fannie/Freddie) in making loan fees, the greed of home owners using the resulting higher home home prices to take 2nd and 3rd mortgages to buy things they could not afford. Fannie/Freddie were flipping mortgages as fast as the private banks and taking in fees. At the first financial stress (2008 extremely high gas/oil prices/weakening economy) the marginal home buyers defaulted as did the multiple mortgage owners. Now the STATE wants more mortgage regulation because they know what is good for us. To counterbalance the untruthfulness and greed of homeowners was the untruthfulness and greed of banks. Politicians changed the banking rules enacted after the depression to prevent banks from gambling the money in the bank with risky derivatives and OTC trading, etc. The pigs were in the pigpen playing but the majority of Americans who didn't cheat have to eat the swill left behind because it is for the common good.

Congress in an effort to please the executive state passes a TARP bill to buy toxic assets (bad housing loans) caused by Barney Frank/Chris Dodd/Maxine Waters refusing to rein in Freddie/Fannie and forced banks to make NINJA loans (no income/no job/ no assets) because EVERYONE should own a home. Banks had 2 choices to stop ACORN from picketing or suing them for racial bias - either make the risky NINJA loans OR pay money directly to ACORN to stop their picketing and/or lawsuits. Taxpayers now understand WHY financial institutions such as Bank of America give money to ACORN. Home buyers knowingly signed "liar loans" where they lied on how much they earned to qualify for a mortgage and some home flippers purchased multiple homes they could not afford in the hopes of selling again quickly before bills came due. When the defaults began EVERYONE "collectively" went down as the economy tanked instead of just the banks making the bad loans and the people who lied about their incomes to get the loans. Why? Because banks sold their bad mortgages overseas instead of keeping them on their books so they could care less if the NINJA loan defaulted. Why? Because Congress changed the rules to garner votes and everyone was flipping homes making lots of money inflating the real estate bubble. The taxpayer is then forced to pay back these foreign financial institutions funneling the money though AIG/Goldman Sachs under the guise of an American company bailout. Forget transparency-trust the State as they know what is best for us.

The EXECUTIVE STATE branch then hires Tim Gietner to fix the banks. Gietner used to work for Goldman Sachs which helped bring about this mortgage mess and the derivative/speculative market mess. Geitner then hired all his Goldman Sachs buddies some of who still sat on Goldman Sacks board but the White House gave him a waiver. When Tim Gietner got to decide which banks lived or died, he used taxpayer money to bail out Goldman Sachs. Leyman Brothers was Goldman Sachs NUMBER #1 competitor so of course Geitner let it fail. AIG owed millions to Goldman Sachs so Tim Gietner used taxpayer money to bail out AIG and Goldman Sachs was first in line to get their millions back. Then Goldman buddy Gietner changed Goldman Sachs status from investment to "BANK" but in name only. No pesky unwashed masses (taxpayer) could actually open a bank account at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was called a BANK only to get access to these unwashed masses (taxpayers) money in the form of government interest free loans. Then Goldman Sachs using this bank name disguise promptly purchased smaller bank getting even BIGGER than its already "too big to fail" and needs a taxpayer bailout size. Timothy Gietner is doing what Timothy McVeigh could only dreamed of doing-destroying our Constitution/country.

The STATE used this TARP (troubled Assets (bad mortgages) Relief Program) taxpayer borrowed money to actually BUY THE BANKS instead of just the toxic assets by bailing the banks out becoming controlling shareholders (converting preferred to common stock) and the banks who didn't need the money were ordered to take it so strings could be attached to these now puppet banks also. These bailouts were done over the majority of voter objections but it was done for our own economic good and it makes a good way to control the money though the banks. In one instance, the STATE threatened the Bank of America president and his board with dismissal if they don't play along and buy Merrill Lynch which was disastrous for their shareholders. What good is control if you don't use it? Let's give the Fed more control now says the STATE. The end justifies the means as it is done for our own good.

Our auto industry is bailed out under the guise of preventing them from filing bankruptcy and losing all those jobs and taxpayers were promised they would make money on the loans. In reality, the STATE wanted to avoid a REAL bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler which would have allowed a judge to CHANGE union pay and contracts and the STATE could not allow that after all the election money the unions donated to elect the current STATE. Chrysler is bailed out and taxpayers told this was for our own economic good and then a forced marriage is made between Chrysler and Fiat and all taxpayer bailout money was FORGIVEN (not to be paid back) so a foreign country got an American company with a huge taxpayer funded boost. This loan forgiveness was never approved by Congress or the voters but it was for our own good.

On paper after the tax payer bail out GM appears to be privately owned but in real life the STATE fires the GM president. The bail out was for saving jobs yet "randomly" auto dealers with fantastic sales were forced to close while politically connected not so good dealers were allowed to stay open and parts and dealer jobs bled all over the U.S. Ford didn't need any money because they build their cars in Mexico.
The GM bail out was to avoid bankruptcy but GM goes bankrupt anyway but under STATE control so the union contracts are not affected. Again, the taxpayer is screwed because the bail out loans are forgiven in lieu of the STATE owning GM shares and becoming an owner. Again, the taxpayer and Congress was not asked as the STATE knows what is economically good for us.

Contracts made with auto bond holders are broken in favor of unions when it is convenient for the State. Then the STATE turns around and justifies their bail out bill allowing the bank executive bonuses (Fed Reserve buddies) to stand because "the executives had a contract" which they did and they should have been upheld just as the bond holder contracts should have been upheld. Instead, public bad "feelings" swayed the state to break the executive contracts also. Constitution be damned.

The above breaking of contracts for some is called "a feeling ruling" Like that female supreme court nominee who is a "feeling ruling judge". The law is fluid. One day a person goes to court and wins and the next day another person with the SAME concern goes to court and loses. Why? Because the judge's feeling was that one person needed a different ruling because he was disenfranchised, had a harder life, was the preferred race or sex or smiled prettier or was a union. Welcome to the world of the auto bondholders and executive bonus broken... Read more ›