Amazon Prime includes:
| Prime Benefits |
|
|---|---|
| Award winning movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video | ✓ |
| On demand, ad-free music streaming with Prime Music | ✓ |
| Early access to deals and savings with Prime Exclusives | ✓ |
Buy new:
$19.37$19.37
Delivery Monday, September 2
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Very Good
$8.04$8.04
Delivery August 30 - September 10
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Jenson Books Inc
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change Paperback – June 2, 2009
Purchase options and add-ons
“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.
- Print length512 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherForum Books
- Publication dateJune 2, 2009
- Dimensions5.2 x 1 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100767917189
- ISBN-13978-0767917186
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Frequently bought together

Customers who bought this item also bought

The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasPaperback$10.75 shippingTemporarily out of stock.
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Well-researched, seriously argued, and funny.” —Publishers Weekly“Bold and witty… [Goldberg] makes a persuasive case that fascism was from the beginning a movement of the left.” —New York Post“Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment.” —Tom Wolfe
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Mussolini:
The Father of Fascism
You’re the top!
You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top!
You are Mussolini!
—An early version of the Cole Porter song “You’re the Top” (1)
IF YOU WENT solely by what you read in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books, or what you learned from Hollywood, you could be forgiven for thinking that Benito Mussolini came to power around the same time as Adolf Hitler—or even a little bit later—and that Italian Fascism was merely a tardy, watered–down version of Nazism. Germany passed its hateful race policies—the Nuremberg Laws—in 1935, and Mussolini’s Italy followed suit in 1938. German Jews were rounded up in 1942, and Jews in Italy were rounded up in 1943. A few writers will casually mention, in parenthetical asides, that until Italy passed its race laws there were actually Jews serving in the Italian government and the Fascist Party. And on occasion you’ll notice a nod to historical accuracy indicating that the Jews were rounded up only after the Nazis had invaded northern Italy and created a puppet government in Salo. But such inconvenient facts are usually skipped over as quickly as possible. More likely, your understanding of these issues comes from such sources as the Oscar–winning film Life Is Beautiful, (2) which can be summarized as follows: Fascism arrived in Italy and, a few months later, so did the Nazis, who carted off the Jews. As for Mussolini, he was a bombastic, goofy–looking, but highly effective dictator who made the trains run on time.
All of this amounts to playing the movie backward. By the time Italy reluctantly passed its shameful race laws—which it never enforced with even a fraction of the barbarity shown by the Nazis—over 75 percent of Italian Fascism’s reign had already transpired. A full sixteen years elapsed between the March on Rome and the passage of Italy's race laws. To start with the Jews when talking about Mussolini is like starting with FDR’s internment of the Japanese: it leaves a lot of the story on the cutting room floor. Throughout the 1920s and well into the 1930s, fascism meant something very different from Auschwitz and Nuremberg. Before Hitler, in fact, it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti–Semitism. Indeed, Mussolini was supported not only by the chief rabbi of Rome but by a substantial portion of the Italian Jewish community (and the world Jewish community). Moreover, Jews were overrepresented in the Italian Fascist movement from its founding in 1919 until they were kicked out in 1938.
Race did help turn the tables of American public opinion on Fascism. But it had nothing to do with the Jews. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Americans finally started to turn on him. In 1934 the hit Cole Porter song “You’re the Top” engendered nary a word of controversy over the line “You are Mussolini!” When Mussolini invaded that poor but noble African kingdom the following year, it irrevocably marred his image, and Americans decided they had had enough of his act. It was the first war of conquest by a Western European nation in over a decade, and Americans were distinctly unamused, particularly liberals and blacks. Still, it was a slow process. The Chicago Tribune initially supported the invasion, as did reporters like Herbert Matthews. Others claimed it would be hypocritical to condemn it. The New Republic—then in the thick of its pro–Soviet phase—believed it would be “naive” to blame Mussolini when the real culprit was international capitalism. And more than a few prominent Americans continued to support him, although quietly. The poet Wallace Stevens, for example, stayed pro–Fascist. “I am pro–Mussolini, personally,” he wrote to a friend. “The Italians,” he explained, “have as much right to take Ethiopia from the coons as the coons had to take it from the boa–constrictors.” (3) But over time, largely due to his subsequent alliance with Hitler, Mussolini’s image never recovered.
That's not to say he didn't have a good ride.
In 1923 the journalist Isaac F. Marcosson wrote admiringly in the New York Times that “Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home.” (4) The American Legion, which has been for nearly its entire history a great and generous American institution, was founded the same year as Mussolini’s takeover and, in its early years, drew inspiration from the Italian Fascist movement. “Do not forget,” the legion’s national commander declared that same year, “that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.” (5)
In 1926 the American humorist Will Rogers visited Italy and interviewed Mussolini. He told the New York Times that Mussolini was “some Wop.” “I’m pretty high on that bird.” Rogers, whom the National Press Club had informally dubbed “Ambassador–at–Large of the United States,” wrote up the interview for the Saturday Evening Post. He concluded, “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” (6) In 1927 the Literary Digest conducted an editorial survey asking the question: “Is there a dearth of great men?” The person named most often to refute the charge was Benito Mussolini—followed by Lenin, Edison, Marconi, and Orville Wright, with Henry Ford and George Bernard Shaw tying for sixth place. In 1928 the Saturday Evening Post glorified Mussolini even further, running an eight–part autobiography written by Il Duce himself. The series was gussied up into a book that gained one of the biggest advances ever given by an American publisher.
And why shouldn’t the average American think Mussolini was anything but a great man? Winston Churchill had dubbed him the world’s greatest living lawgiver. Sigmund Freud sent Mussolini a copy of a book he co–wrote with Albert Einstein, inscribed, “To Benito Mussolini, from an old man who greets in the Ruler, the Hero of Culture.” The opera titans Giacomo Puccini and Arturo Toscanini were both pioneering Fascist acolytes of Mussolini. Toscanini was an early member of the Milan circle of Fascists, which conferred an aura of seniority not unlike being a member of the Nazi Party in the days of the Beer Hall Putsch. Toscanini ran for the Italian parliament on a Fascist ticket in 1919 and didn’t repudiate Fascism until twelve years later. (7)
Mussolini was a particular hero to the muckrakers—those progressive liberal journalists who famously looked out for the little guy. When Ida Tarbell, the famed reporter whose work helped break up Standard Oil, was sent to Italy in 1926 by McCall’s to write a series on the Fascist nation, the U.S. State Department feared that this “pretty red radical” would write nothing but “violent anti–Mussolini articles.” Their fears were misplaced. Tarbell was wooed by the man she called “a despot with a dimple,” praising his progressive attitude toward labor. Similarly smitten was Lincoln Steffens, another famous muckraker, who is today perhaps dimly remembered for being the man who returned from the Soviet Union declaring, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Shortly after that declaration, he made another about Mussolini: God had “formed Mussolini out of the rib of Italy.” As we’ll see, Steffens saw no contradiction between his fondness for Fascism and his admiration of the Soviet Union. Even Samuel McClure, the founder of McClure’s Magazine, the home of so much famous muckraking, championed Fascism after visiting Italy. He hailed it as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.” (8)
Meanwhile, almost all of Italy’s most famous and admired young intellectuals and artists were Fascists or Fascist sympathizers (the most notable exception was the literary critic Benedetto Croce). Giovanni Papini, the “magical pragmatist” so admired by William James, was deeply involved in the various intellectual movements that created Fascism. Papini’s Life of Christ—a turbulent, almost hysterical tour de force chronicling his acceptance of Christianity—caused a sensation in the United States in the early 1920s. Giuseppe Prezzolini, a frequent contributor to the New Republic who would one day become a respected professor at Columbia University, was one of Fascism’s earliest literary and ideological architects. F. T. Marinetti, the founder of the Futurist movement—which in America was seen as an artistic companion to Cubism and Expressionism—was instrumental in making Italian Fascism the world's first successful “youth movement.” America's education establishment was keenly interested in Italy’s “breakthroughs” under the famed “schoolmaster” Benito Mussolini, who, after all, had once been a teacher.
Perhaps no elite institution in America was more accommodating to Fascism than Columbia University. In 1926 it established Casa Italiana, a center for the study of Italian culture and a lecture venue for prominent Italian scholars. It was Fascism’s “veritable home in America” and a “schoolhouse for budding Fascist ideologues,” according to John Patrick Diggins. Mussolini himself had contributed some ornate Baroque furniture to Casa Italiana and had sent Columbia’s president, Nicholas Murray Butler, a signed photo thanking him for his “most valuable contribution” to the promotion of understanding between Fascist Italy and the United States. (9) Butler himself was not an advocate of fascism for America, but he did believe it was in the best interests of the Italian people and that it had been a very real success, well worth studying. This subtle distinction—fascism is good for Italians, but maybe not for America—was held by a vast array of prominent liberal intellectuals in much the same way some liberals defend Castro’s communist “experiment.”
While academics debated the finer points of Mussolini’s corporatist state, mainstream America’s interest in Mussolini far outstripped that of any other international figure in the 1920s. From 1925 to 1928 there were more than a hundred articles written on Mussolini in American publications and only fifteen on Stalin. (10) For more than a decade the New York Times’s foreign correspondent Anne O’Hare McCormick painted a glowing picture of Mussolini that made the Times’s later fawning over Stalin seem almost critical. The New York Tribune was vexed to answer the question: Was Mussolini Garibaldi or Caesar? Meanwhile, James A. Farrell, the head of U.S. Steel, dubbed the Italian dictator “the greatest living man” in the world.
Hollywood moguls, noting his obvious theatrical gifts, hoped to make Mussolini a star of the big screen, and he appeared in The Eternal City (1923), starring Lionel Barrymore. The film recounts the battles between communists and Fascists for control of Italy, and—mirabile dictu—Hollywood takes the side of the Fascists. “His deportment on the screen,” one reviewer proclaimed, “lends weight to the theory that this is just where he belongs.” (11) In 1933 Columbia Pictures released a “documentary” called Mussolini Speaks—supervised by Il Duce himself. Lowell Thomas—the legendary American journalist who had made Lawrence of Arabia famous—worked closely on the film and provided fawning commentary throughout. Mussolini was portrayed as a heroic strongman and national savior. When the crescendo builds before Mussolini gives a speech in Naples, Thomas declares breathlessly, “This is his supreme moment. He stands like a modern Caesar!” The film opened to record business at the RKO Palace in New York. Columbia took out an ad in Variety proclaiming the film a hit in giant block letters because “it appeals to all RED BLOODED AMERICANS” and “it might be the ANSWER TO AMERICA'S NEEDS.”
Fascism certainly had its critics in the 1920s and 1930s. Ernest Hemingway was skeptical of Mussolini almost from the start. Henry Miller disliked Fascism’s program but admired Mussolini’s will and strength. Some on the so–called Old Right, like the libertarian Albert J. Nock, saw Fascism as just another kind of statism. The nativist Ku Klux Klan—ironically, often called “American fascists” by liberals—tended to despise Mussolini and his American followers (mainly because they were immigrants). Interestingly, the hard left had almost nothing to say about Italian Fascism for most of its first decade. While liberals were split into various unstable factions, the American left remained largely oblivious to Fascism until the Great Depression. When the left did finally start attacking Mussolini in earnest—largely on orders from Moscow—they lumped him in essentially the same category as Franklin Roosevelt, the socialist Norman Thomas, and the progressive Robert La Follette. (12)
We’ll be revisiting how American liberals and leftists viewed Fascism in subsequent chapters. But first it seems worth asking, how was this possible? Given everything we’ve been taught about the evils of fascism, how is it that for more than a decade this country was in significant respects pro–fascist? Even more vexing, how is it—considering that most liberals and leftists believe they were put on this earth to oppose fascism with every breath—that many if not most American liberals either admired Mussolini and his project or simply didn’t care much about it one way or the other?
The answer resides in the fact that Fascism was born of a “fascist moment” in Western civilization, when a coalition of intellectuals going by various labels—progressive, communist, socialist, and so forth—believed the era of liberal democracy was drawing to a close. It was time for man to lay aside the anachronisms of natural law, traditional religion, constitutional liberty, capitalism, and the like and rise to the responsibility of remaking the world in his own image. God was long dead, and it was long overdue for men to take His place. Mussolini, a lifelong socialist intellectual, was a warrior in this crusade, and his Fascism—a doctrine he created from the same intellectual material Lenin and Trotsky had built their movements with—was a grand leap into the era of “experimentation” that would sweep aside old dogmas and usher in a new age. This was in every significant way a project of the left as we understand the term today, a fact understood by Mussolini, his admirers, and his detractors. Mussolini declared often that the nineteenth century was the century of liberalism and the twentieth century would be the “century of Fascism.” It is only by examining his life and legacy that we can see how right—and left—he was.
* * *
Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was named after three revolutionary heroes. The name Benito—a Spanish name, as opposed to the Italian equivalent, Benedetto—was inspired by Benito Juárez, the Mexican revolutionary turned president who not only toppled the emperor Maximilian but had him executed. The other two names were inspired by now-forgotten heroes of anarchist–socialism, Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa.
Mussolini’s father, Alessandro, was a blacksmith and ardent socialist with an anarchist bent who was a member of the First International along with Marx and Engels and served on the local socialist council. Alessandro’s “[h]eart and mind were always filled and pulsing with socialistic theories,” Mussolini recalled. “His intense sympathies mingled with [socialist] doctrines and causes. He discussed them in the evening with his friends and his eyes filled with light.” (13) On other nights Mussolini's father read him passages from Das Kapital. When villagers brought their horses to Alessandro’s shop to be shod, part of the price came in the form of listening to the blacksmith spout his socialist theories. Mussolini was a congenital rabble–rouser. At the age of ten, young Benito led a demonstration against his school for serving bad food. In high school he called himself a socialist, and at the age of eighteen, while working as a substitute teacher, he became the secretary of a socialist organization and began his career as a left–wing journalist.
Product details
- Publisher : Forum Books; First Edition (June 2, 2009)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 512 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0767917189
- ISBN-13 : 978-0767917186
- Item Weight : 12.8 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.2 x 1 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #135,480 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #94 in Fascism (Books)
- #428 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- #473 in History & Theory of Politics
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

JONAH GOLDBERG is the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty at the American Enterprise Institute and is a Senior Editor at National Review. A best-selling author, his nationally syndicated column appears regularly in over a hundred newspapers across the United States. He is also a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a Fox News contributor, and a regular member of the “Fox News All-Stars” on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
He was the founding editor of National Review Online. The Atlantic magazine has identified Goldberg as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. Among his awards, in 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of leading publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. He is the author of the forthcoming "Suicide of the West" (Crown Forum, 2018), as well as two New York Times bestsellers: “The Tyranny of Clichés” (Sentinel HC, 2012) and “Liberal Fascism” (Doubleday, 2008).
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book serious, scholarly, and not overly emotional. They describe the content as fascinating, courageous, and illuminating. Readers describe the book as amazing, humorous, and well-written. They also say it paints an accurate picture of what's going on in the US.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book's documentation serious, intelligent, and well-researched. They also say it offers many historical accounts that they were not previously aware of, helps them achieve a clearer understanding of the connections between French Marxist, and provides enough detail to create predictive models. Customers also say the book is often prescient and a very good layperson's introduction to the history of fascism. They say it's a good guide for conservatives to recognize the groupthink and trends in fascist history.
"...This is a serious scholarly work, and it deserves to be read and judged as such. Goldberg is attempting to right a historical injustice...." Read more
"...Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' is an excellent treatise of the concept of Fascism, making Fascism and its history accessible to understanding by..." Read more
"...kind of boring to read, but which exactly because it's not propagandistic or overly emotional, is one of the few books that made me realize what the..." Read more
"...Goldberg's book is often prescient. Recently Senator Clinton proposed a five-year freeze on interest rates, a typical example of fascist economics...." Read more
Customers find the book amazing, excellent, and impressive. They say it's one of the better non-fiction books they've read. Readers also describe the book as extremely valuable, important, and credible. They mention that the analysis is thorough and humorous.
"...I find his conversational and somewhat informal style to be witty and readable...." Read more
"...This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the..." Read more
"...It is an excellent companion to Amity Schlaes history of the Great Depression, "The Forgotten Man."..." Read more
"...In general, the book holds up well against its critics...." Read more
Customers find the book exceedingly well written, compelling, and difficult to read. They also say the Progressive Movement is well outlined and the book paints an accurate picture of what's going on in the US.
"...I find his conversational and somewhat informal style to be witty and readable...." Read more
"...: "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism" is a not-too-difficult yet significant treatise...." Read more
"...Excellent.Finally, there is joy in reading a book well-written and rational...." Read more
"...More like a classic work of literature that is kind of boring to read, but which exactly because it's not propagandistic or overly emotional, is one..." Read more
Customers find the book fascinating, revolutionary, and eye-opening. They also say it's easy to digest and courageous in outlining the true nature of fascism.
"Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is an interesting but problematic book. Because of its incendiary topic, it needed to be really great to be successful...." Read more
"...His historical analysis contained many flashes of brilliant insight however in my opinion the book could have greatly benefited from more thought, a..." Read more
"...Every American should read this easy-to-digest history of the creeping, or perhaps we should say, charging socialism occurring around the world and..." Read more
"Goldberg tells an interesting and largely accurate story regarding the history and forms of fascism...." Read more
Customers find the book frightening, serious, and unnerving in its implications.
"...Goldberg has produced a serious, well researched work that explores the thesis that is at once both obvious and rarely observed; that modern leftism/..." Read more
"...Goldberg's is sometimes worrisome, scary, humorous, and hopeful...." Read more
"...Well written and interesting to read. Also scary. A clear look into parts of U.S. history a lot of people want forgotten." Read more
"It is a very hardcore, in your face, cutting work, which reveals some very startling comparisons that most people are not only completely oblivious..." Read more
Reviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
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.
'Liberal Fascism' can become a serious academic work if all of Goldberg's referenced material proves to be accurate. There is some marked weakness in its bibliographic referencing that makes it a bit more difficult to trace sources. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg could rectify this problem with an on-line link to a more thorough bibliography. Certainly any future editions should contain references for all source material. Also, I wish Mr. Goldberg would have abandoned the Political Correctness routine that says you can't offend someone by writing the truth about their politics and philosophy. Mr. Goldberg apologizes too often for stating reality, as if he is worried that the truth might hurt too much ... or that some modern Liberal might accuse him of a 'hate crime' ! This is one of those subjects that requires you let the 'chips fall where they may'.
I am confident from my own long obsession with pursuing an understanding of Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and all the other 'ism' variants of Collectivism, that greater than 90% of Goldberg's material is indeed accurate. I am a physical chemist/chemical physicist by education and occupation. I have watched many years of government planning in science/engineering lead to corruption of projects [and even death] ... and still more years of crisis-management in corporations and academics as they waste time and money to the point of absurdity. I began 15 years ago a passionate quest to understand 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong', 'just' and 'unjust'. The search led quickly [and ultimately] to philosophy ... over 2000 years of it recorded in books written by men [and women]. In that search I have read many dozens of texts on Socialism and its variants, most of those texts being very 'deep' and requiring many hours of reading and re-reading and introspection to assemble an accurate assessment of the author's thoughts and mindset. Few laymen would invest this amount of time or effort, as most people just don't have that amount of time available to them with today's 'busy schedules'.
Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' is an excellent treatise of the concept of Fascism, making Fascism and its history accessible to understanding by the serious layman. He does perhaps 'bend' the concepts somewhat in his assessments of modern derivative political concepts ... but points out when key characteristics of the Fascist concept are present in those derivative systems. Ludwig von Mises himself had difficulty in defining explicitly what Socialism is when he first wrote 'Socialism' in 1922 as Fascism was just becoming known. Von Mises ultimately defined Socialism as any system of economic and political philosophy that advocates centralized planning of the economy. Fascism has always been vague in its core definition, even when first coined by Mussolini. But though Mussolini may have 'invented' the term, key elements contained in the concept, and recurring over-and-over through to present times, existed and were practiced by authoritarian governments and parties prior to Mussolini ever coming to power. Thus Hitler and Mussolini were able to express their gratitude and admiration of Woodrow Wilson's ideas and other American academicians ... and ultimately F.D. Roosevelt. That is precisely the history Goldberg is communicating within the body of his book. What the book 'should do' is inspire interested persons to dig deeper ... and force critics to justify their opposition with facts, not vitriolic invectives.
The 'Ace' of economists, Noble Laureate Ludwig von Mises, wrote in his 1950 'Preface to the 2nd Edition' of his 1932 book 'Socialism --- an Economic and Sociological Analysis' regarding Communism and Socialism, "No longer should individuals by their buying or abstention from buying determine what is to be produced and in what quantity and quality. Henceforth the government's unique plan alone should settle all these matters. 'Paternal' care of the 'Welfare State' will reduce all people to the status of bonded workers bound to comply, without asking questions, with the orders issued by the planning authority. Neither is there any substantial difference between the intentions of the self-styled 'progressives' and those of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis. The Fascists and the Nazis were no less eager to establish all-round regimentation of all economic activities than those governments and parties which flamboyantly advertise their anti-Fascist tenets." von Mises was born and raised in Austria during the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. The above excerpt was written after he had migrated to America.
I would also point out that last year on Tim Russert's 'Meet the Press', Mr. Russert asked Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, if he was a Socialist. Mr. Dean was stunned at the question, but did answer that he is 'a Democratic Socialist'. Just last fall in one of the Democratic Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton was asked if she is a 'liberal' ... she responded that she is a 'proud modern Progressive'!! Jonah Goldberg's book is very relevant to contemporary political times!!
I strongly recommend Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism'. I also recommend the above book by von Mises ['Socialism'], along with Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels: A Brilliant Study of America Today and the Ominous Parallels with the Chaos of Pre-Hitler Germany" [1982]. Additionally, a 1988 work by F.A. Hayek: "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism" is a not-too-difficult yet significant treatise. It is always interesting to read the 'later' works of learned men to see how their views have solidified [or changed] later in their lives [Hayek died in 1992].
Kudos to Mr. Goldberg !!
Top reviews from other countries
Upon reading this thesis I instinctively found it disturbing as if it seemed to go against the natural order of things. Of course the Nazi's and the Italian Fascists were on the far right. Are they not our society's very definition of the far right?
Yet why, asks Goldberg, if the Nazis were so far right on the political spectrum, did they brand themselves as socialists? Indeed, the very word Nazi comes from a shortening of the party's official name, die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, - German for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Similarly, why did Mussolini, whose parents read Das Kapital to him as a child, consider himself a 'socialist' right up until the moment of his execution at which his acolyte shouted, "Long live Mussolini, long live socialism!"
Goldberg argues, with considerable backing, that fascism began very much as a left-wing movement, with the added embrace of nationalism. In fact, Goldberg suggests that the first categorizing of fascists as right-wing only occurred after Stalin put out the directive that all opponents of the his rule of the Soviet Union, including Trotsky, were to be labeled as such in a bid for control of Germany.
Fascism, says Goldberg, was born of a "fascist moment" in Western civilization, when a coalition of intellectuals under various labels - progressive, communist, socialist - believed the era of liberal democracy was drawing to a close. Leaving little doubt with him that fascism was a project of the left.
Consider Cuba, prods Goldberg. Who can legitimately contest the fascist tendencies of its supposed leftist totalitarianism with its nearly lifelong military dictator Fidel Castro; its religion of fidelity to the state; the beatification of its martyr Che Guevara; and the brand of patriotism promoting "socialism or death"?
As to why he wrote the book, Goldberg, admits in part to a simple emotional impulse. As a conservative, he is tired of those on the left refusing to debate him on awkward facts, instead calling him a fascist, thus undeserving of consideration. The word fascist is more than just a modern synonym for evil; it puts a complete stop to all discussion. With its associations to the Nazi-ordered Holocaust, to be called a fascist is to be told your views are so repugnant they are not worthy of debate. (Ironically, the use of the label 'fascist' in modern debate is in itself becoming a fascist tactic to ending discussion.)
This book is of great importance, particularly as a healthy, open political debate is long overdue. With this book Goldberg has perhaps launched the political discussion that could rock our society's current thinking to its core.
With its clear writing, solid research and truly thought-provoking arguments, this book should be a must-read addition to every self-respecting political junkie's library.
Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, this book very much merits a look and a read it is one of the most startling polemics I have read.







