Customer Reviews

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

5 star:		(375)
4 star:		(75)
3 star:		(30)
2 star:		(24)
1 star:		(93)

 

 

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.

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.

A lot has been written about this book, and I'm not inclined to add much to the debate. If you read LIBERAL FASCISM as providing a grand unified theory of contemporary history you will be able to find some flaws (like most books of the genre). Yet if you read the book to get a quick overview of recent history, I think you will learn a lot. Most people don't know about the importance of eugenics in US history, how "progressive" the Nazis were, the left's infatuation with Communism (and fascism), and many other facts that are brought out in the book.

At this point, I'm only about two thirds of the way through Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. So far, I've found the book to be fascinating. Growing up thinking that "this is just how things are", or hearing the sanitized (or romanticized) versions of recent history, it's really good to see the origins of "liberal" or "progressive" thought, its connection to the fascist or Nazi world view and the context of certain events -- like the unrest and the Great Society agenda of the 1960s.

The author approaches the subject of Liberal Fascism with considerable thoroughness. That is good, because you can get a very good sense of how things fit together, looking at things from several different angles and in different contexts. However, by the time I got halfway through the book, a lot of things were starting to sound very familiar. Since I'm not an historian, I almost wish I had waited for the Readers Digest version to come out.

The author also makes very strong links between the progressives of the early 1900s and the liberal politics of today. And, while you can draw a straight line through these respective agendas, I think the author might be overstating the links. However, as he states, "even when motives and arguments change, the substance of the policy remains in its effects" (p. 276).

All-in-all, I think this book is well worth the time it takes to read it. Certainly, anyone from the Right would gain insights from this book; but, those from the Left could also benefit from the historical perspective of his or her own political view. I think this book would be a great textbook for a college course on political history, and would provide valuable insights into a study of 20th Century American History.

Goldberg's book wanders from time to time and there are parts that are hard to follow because of this. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book. Goldberg correctly identifies fascism as a left wing movement, a fact that most do not seem to recognize. He exposes the continuity of thought from the so-called progressives a century ago to the so-called progressives today. While identifying similarities between fascism over the last 100 years and today's liberals, he takes pains to insist that he is not saying that today's liberals are just like Nazis (in contrast to some of the other reviews you may read). This is a thought-provoking and enlightening book. Hopefully the skeptical will be motivated to learn the truth.

The fact that a "Washington Post" writer provides a very lengthy rebuttal...not commentary, that poorly masquerades as an offical Editorial Review in this listing, is quite telling. The many truths and rational connections Mr. Goldberg has provided in this expose have rubbed more than a few nerves.

Many of extreme left vs. right, right vs. left books on the market represent nothing more than self-indulgent "tirads on parchment."
This book is different. It is relatively well researched. You will not be able to put it down.

Highly recommended.

Looking at Liberalism from a different perspective, Jonah Goldberg has written Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (New York: Doubleday, c. 2007). Goldberg's title (and treatment) are almost deliberately incendiary, designed to anger American liberals who have routinely insisted that "fascism" is a conservative trait! Here they ape "Stalin [who] stumbled on a brilliant tactic of simply labeling all inconvenient ideas and movements fascist" (p. 10). With Stalin they deny, for example, that Hitler was a man of the Left, whereas he was a doctrinaire socialist--though of a national, not an international, variety.
So, for clarity, Goldberg provides this definition of fascism: "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it 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 action, whether by fore or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the `problem' and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism" (p. 23). Consequently, he points out remarkable correlations and draws intriguing conclusions that make his treatise quite thought-provoking. Historically, the argument he endeavors to prove is this: "Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today's liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism" (p. 2).
Before the Holocaust, "when it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti-Semitism" (p. 26), many American liberals, including members of FDR's "brain trust" such as Rexford Tugwell, openly admired fascist efficiency. To New Dealers (pragmatists to a man) success validated the truth and goodness of ideas. Thus Tugwell praised Italian Fascism as "'the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious'" (p. 13). What Tugwell--and earlier Progressives including Woodrow Wilson--craved is what Goldberg calls "the totalitarian temptation--that with the right amount of tinkering we can realize the utopian cream of `creating a better world'" (p. 15). That longing still marks the rhetoric of "hope" (Barak Obama) and the "politics of meaning" (Hillary Clinton). The desire to create a perfect world, to make sure that everyone's cared for, to require everyone to live right, informed "the Nazi antismoking and public health drives [that] foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food, trans fats, and the like. A Hitler Youth manual proclaimed, `Nutrition is not a private matter!'" (p. 19). "'You have the duty to be healthy!'" (p. 389).
Nor was drinking left up to individual choice! American Progressives' crusade to banish alcoholic beverages (triumphant in the 18th amendment) garnered praise from Nazi publicists for its linking "moral and physical health." And many Prohibitionists applauded "the election of Hitler, a famous teetotaler. And while the racist undercurrent of Prohibition was always there--alcohol fueled the licentiousness of the mongrel races--in Germany the concern was more that alcohol and even more the despised cigarette would lead to the degeneracy of Germany's Aryan purity. Tobacco was credited with every evil imaginable, including fostering homosexuality" (p. 268). Hitler hated tobacco, holding that cigarette addiction illustrated the "'wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor" (p. 388). "The Nazi war on alcoholism and the Hitlerite emphasis on organic foods slowly pushed the beverage industry away from beer and booze and toward natural fruit juices. Children were a special priority. In 1933 the Nazis banned alcohol advertising that was aimed at children" (p. 299).
Goldberg further finds fascinating parallels between the Environmentalism of today's liberals and "the Nazi cult of the organic." Along with Hither, many leading Nazis, "Himmler, Rudolph Hess, Martin Bormann and--maybe--Goebbels were vegetarians or health food fetishists" (p. 385). There was a back-to-the-earth agenda to much of the Nazi program, a celebration of the "natural" rather than the "artificial." Eminent Nazis proclaimed a commitment to "animal rights," and sought to enshrine them in legislation; Himmler even branded hunting as "'really pure murder'" (p. 386). He envisioned his SS troops eating strictly organic food "and was dedicated to making the transition for all of Germany after the war. Organic food was seamlessly linked to the larger Nazi conception of the organic nation living in harmony with a pre- or non-Christian ecosystem" (p. 389).
To rightly explain these totalizing aspects of Fascism, Goldberg gives careful attention to Benito Mussolini. "He was one of Europe's leading radical socialists in arguably the most radical socialist party outside of Russia. Under his stewardship, the journal Avanti! became close to gospel for a whole generation of socialist intellectuals, including Antonio Gramsci" (p. 36). Gramsci, importantly, is a major influence in leftist circles; he urged his followers to launch a long, slow march through cultural institutions (universities, media, churches) rather than rely upon revolutions to bring about a socialist utopia. Mussolini was clearly indebted to the "syndicalism" of Georges Sorel, and "without syndicalism fascism was impossible" (p. 36). Interestingly enough, "Sorel was deeply influenced by the Pragmatism of William James, who pioneered the notion that all one needs is the `will to believe'" (p. 37). Still more: Sorel replicated much of Rousseau and Robespierre and the radical ideas of the French Revolution, which "was the first totalitarian revolution, the mother of modern totalitarianism, and the spiritual model for the Italian Fascist, German Nazi, and Russian Communist revolutions" (p. 38).
Across the Atlantic, Mussolini's American contemporary, Woodrow Wilson, and the Progressives who supported him, were "at the forefront of the push for a truly totalitarian state," Goldberg argues (p. 80). "Wilson's view of politics could be summarized by the word `statolatry,' or state worship (the same sin with which the Vatican charged Mussolini). Wilson believed that the state was a natural, organic, and spiritual expression of the people themselves" (p. 86). Thus, as Rousseau had said, government continually changes to reflect the will of the people, and the Constitution must be considered a living document capable of endless expansion and alteration. In 1912 Wilson declared that "'all that progressives ask or desire is permission--in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle'" (p. 88). Furthermore, just as the species, not the individual really matters to Darwin so too, Wilson insisted, "the essence of Progressivism was that the individual `marry his interests to the state'" (p. 96).
Within two decades, the Progressivism of Wilson moved seamlessly into the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the year FDR was elected, 1932, H.G. Wells "delivered a major speech at Oxford University to Britain's Young Liberals organization, in which he called for a `"Phoenix Rebirth"' of Liberalism' under the banner of "Liberal Fascism'" (p. 134). Wells had given up hoping the Fabian Socialism he'd earlier supported would work. So he envisioned a new approach to attain the transformation of society, rather resembling what was emergent in Germany and Italy. Wells highly admired FDR, frequently met him in the White House, and called him "'the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order" (p. 135). In Goldberg's judgment, "it seems impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic" (p. 158). It encapsulated "an ideology of power. So long as liberals hold it, principles don't matter" (p. 158). Thus, when Frances Perkins suggested that many New Deal proposals were unconstitutional, FDR blithely brushed away her concerns, ready to pack the Supreme Court or do whatever necessary to implement his plans. "In 1942 he flatly told Congress that if it didn't do what he wanted, he'd do it anyway. He questioned the patriotism of anybody who opposed his economic programs, never mind the war itself" (p. 158).
Consequently: "The apotheosis of liberal aspirations under FDR took place not during the New Deal but during World War II. Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union address proposed what he called a `second Bill of Rights.' But this was really an argument for a new Bill of Rights, turning the original on its head. `Necessitous men are not free men,' he declared. Therefore the state must provide a `new basis of security and prosperity.' Among the new rights on offer were `as useful and remunerative job,' `a decent home,' `adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,' `adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment,' and `a good education.' This second Bill of Rights remains the spiritual lodestar of liberal aspirations to this day" (p. 223).
The world had barely recovered from WWII before fascism took "to the streets" in the 1960s. Remarkably resembling German youths in the 1920s, student radicals in the 1960s determined to overthrow existing authorities, beginning with the universities and their curricula. "The first task of any fascist reformation is to discredit the authority of the past, and this was the top priority of the New Left" (p. 172). Significantly, "In 1966, at a conference at Johns Hopkins University, the French literary critic Jacques Derrida introduced the word `deconstruction'--a term coined by Nazi ideologues--into the American intellectual bloodstream" (p. 173). The rest, as they say, is history! And anyone who witnessed (as I did) deconstruction's role in subverting the integrity of modern universities can attest to the power of Derrida and his views, for "Deconstruction is a direct and unapologetic offshoot of Heidegger's brand of existentialism, which not only was receptive to Nazism but helped foster it" (p. 174).
Goldberg provides extensive documentation showing the fascistic aspects of the New Left in America. Simply to understand the influence of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals (influencing both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!) is to see the parallel between America's New Left and European Fascism. To consider the heroes of the "movement" as it was called in the `60s is to understand much of its nature. In the nation's most prestigious universities, student "radicals" plastered their walls with "posters of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, and Ho Chi Minh" (p. 193). They celebrated the Black Panthers, overlooking the violence and corruption that pervaded its structures. And despite his demonstrably murderous record, Che Guevara remains a cult figure for multitudes of young devotees.
What's evident in all these individuals is what Goldberg labels the "cult of the state." The gigantic growth of government characterized the 20th century, and "for some liberals, the state is in fact a substitute for God and a form of political religion as imagined by Rousseau and Robespierre, the fathers of liberal fascism" (p. 201). And that political religion has powerfully shaped modern American liberalism.

I have to admit that I had not planned to read this book; the title and cover, as well as some of the reviews in the major media, led me to believ that this was a screed of the Ann Coulter sort, long on invective and short on fact and reason. But I received a copy as a gift a few days ago, and I was surprised to learn that it is anything but.

Goldberg goes to great pains to say that this book is not an attack on liberalism, nor is he saying that liberals are fascists. What he is doing, rather, is uncovering the hidden intellectual antecedents of the modern liberal movement in the Progressive anbd Fascist movements of the past. Now before you jump to conclusions claiming (as some reviews have) that Goldberg is equating liberalism with Nazism, consider that Fascism as a movment long preceeded Nazism by a good 15 years, and that in the 1920 Mussolini was greatly admired by progressives for his social programs. Western intellectuals looked at Fascism as a model for modern progressive government, with its emphasis on social services and cradle-to-grave goverment care. Nazism took these ideas, along with the Fascists' rejection of the Internationalism of the Communists, but added to that his own veneer of antisemitism.

Not that the American Progressives were any less guilty of racism and nationalistic fervor; during the Wilson era, which modern liberals point to as a time of great social progress, this country saw newspapers and magazines shut down for printing dissent, people imprisoned for expressing opinions contrary to government policy in their own homes, and the infamous Palmer Raids, in which suspected radicals- foreigners- were rounded up and imprisoned and expelled.

Those who still think of the McCarthy era- a brief period of history in which a group of Hollywood party members became martyrs for lying to congress- was the time when fascism came to America should really read about the Wilson era- or, for that matter, FDR, who, despite being a great wartime leader, imprisoned and confiscated the property of thousands of native born Americans because of their race, and attempted to stack the Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution.

The legacy of the Progressives is no mere historical artifact. Today's liberal offspring of the progressives often complain of government abuse of power, and yet too often they endorse sweeping government powers in support of their political aims. Consider the great "urban renewal" experiments in social engineering of the 1960s, in which neighborhoods were destroyed, property seized, and populations rounded up into housing projects. Or the famous "HillaryCare" initiative, in which a complete nationalization of health care was dreamed up not in the public forum, or even in Congress, where it could be debated, but behind closed doors.

Liberals are forever accusing Conservatives of being the intellectual heirs to Mussolini and Hitler, but the historical record tells a very different story. I've touched on just a small part of this book; there's a tremendous amount of well-researched history that should be of interest to anyone, whatever their political preferences, if only to see a very different view of history from that written by the Progressives and their followers. Of course, I'm sure this review will get the usual collection of ignorant responses that many other positive reviews have received, mainly by people who have not read the book, and many of whom have, in their comments, opined that it should be burned, or never have been printed. And that is very telling in and of itself.

Jonah Goldberg's book should be required reading in all college freshman political science classes. It took me years of independent reading to "un-learn" all the wrong-headed and misleading political analysis of fascism that is 'common-knowledge'. The fact that Fascism in general is the child of Progressivism is fairly well known, but the chapter on the abuses of the Wilson Administration was a real eye-opener. George W. Bush never even imagined 1/10th of the anti-civil liberties measures that Wilson put into place and enforced. As expected, the writing is fresh, clear, concise, and has the inimitable Goldberg wit..
This book is extremely timely. Next year, when the new administration begins to praise "bold experimentation" and urges "unity" to save the nation, you will know what to expect.

Length:: 8:02 Mins

My video about the book Liberal Fascism.
[...]