Is Goldberg’s thesis ridiculous?

Scott B. writes:

I think Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, is quite embarrassing. His basic argument is that the fascists held much in common with modern liberals, and therefore modern liberalism is somehow fascist, but without the genocide, etc. I can’t help but side with the liberals who mock him for absurdly bad syllogistic logic.

Yes, the modern liberals do have much in common with fascists—for example, many varieties of Nanny Statism. But all the things the liberals share in common with the fascists are liberal beliefs rather than beliefs which belong specifically to fascism. Goldberg should be attacking modern liberalism for being liberal, not for being fascist, which is such a blatantly ridiculous idea it can only serve to harm the valid case against modern liberalism.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Scott B. Has clearly not read Golberg’s book, in which Goldberg explicitly rejects the argument that modern liberalism is in practical terms just like European fascism. Scott and others like him who have accused Goldberg of making this argument universally fail to point to any flaw in Golberg’s intellectual history—and that’s what Liberal Fascism is, an intellectual history in which the main thesis is that modern American liberalism is rooted in the Progressive movement, which was very much an intellectual bedfellow to fascism. (In fact, there is much in modern liberalism that is thoroughly fascistic, and much of that has to do with the intellectual pedigree of leftism—this isn’t so hard to understand, is it?) His purpose is to refute the notion that fascism, rightly understood, was fundamentally a phenomenon of the right—and in this he is absolutely correct. The argument has been made by others a hundred times before, and Goldberg is simply giving it a fresh treatment. I am absolutely no fan of the Animal House Conservative, and I despise much of what he represents for American conservatism. But watching people make the exact same erroneous claims about his book over and over and over, no matter how many times he publicly refutes and denies those claims, is a little much for me to stomach.

Scott B. replies:

“Scott B. Has clearly not read Golberg’s book, in which Goldberg explicitly rejects the argument that modern liberalism is in practical terms just like European fascism.”

I admit I haven’t read Goldberg’s book, but I based my analysis upon listening to his speech to the Heritage Foundation and upon his many posts explaining his thesis on NRO, and I think those are pretty strong grounds upon which to formulate an opinion.

I understand fully that he rejects the argument that modern liberalism is in practical terms just like European fascism. My point was that where he does see similarities these are liberal/progressive not fascist similarities.

“His purpose is to refute the notion that fascism, rightly understood, was fundamentally a phenomenon of the right—and in this he is absolutely correct.”

As you know by my previous emails, I do agree with this part of Goldberg’s thesis 100 percent (though for entirely different reasons than he does). But this commonplace of rightist polemic, however it is reasoned, is not what I objected to. What I objected to is what takes up most of his book—the attempt to demonstrate that fascism and liberalism have fundamental attitudes in common. Insofar as they do, these are liberal attitudes, and to whoever disagrees: please give me one example of an attitude held by modern liberals that was held by fascists but was not a liberal idea.

Scott B. continues:

Just to clarify the garbled end of my last comment:

If it’s the case that modern liberalism and fascism have anything in common beyond a shared liberalism, then just give me a single example.

If modern liberalism is “liberal fascism” then surely that shouldn’t be too hard to do, should it?

To put the question in another way: What belief is held by modern liberalism that is distinctively a fascist belief rather than a liberal belief that was also held by fascists?

Paul G. writes:

I’m wondering why Scott B.’s comment on Liberal Fascism is on VFR. It’s not based on legitimate analysis of the book, but on conjecture, and Sage says so. Scott B. replies to Sage McLaughlin by saying, ” I admit I haven’t read Goldberg’s book, but …” that should be the end of his reply as far as I’m concerned. He’s clearly speaking out of ignorance and should stop speaking. It’s one thing to say, “Well, it seems from what Goldberg has written and spoken about that he’d say XYZ in his book, but I don’t know for sure.” That’s honest, reasonable, and rational. Scott B. didn’t say that, though. He said that Goldberg’s book was embarrassing and pontificated on the book’s main arguments, directly implying that he’d read the book and was therefore qualified to judge it. But he didn’t and he’s not, so he should either stop commenting or get the book and read it so that he can make a useful comment.

LA replies:

When I look back now at Scott’s first post, where he said, “I think Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, is quite embarrassing,” you are right. He clearly creates the impression that he’s read the book and he shouldn’t have done this. However, in his reply to Sage, he admits he hasn’t read the book, but says he has listened to a speech by Goldberg about the book and read several blog discussions by Goldberg explaining the book’s theme. So, from that point on, Scott is in effect following your guidelines. Also, he has gone beyond the book and is addressing the substance of the question about liberalism and fascism and asking other commenters for definite evidence that could prove Goldberg’s point. So while he misstated himself at the start, it seems to me he’s on reasonable ground now.

Paul G. replies:

I agree—now he’s on reasonable ground. But even still, he’s criticizing Goldberg’s views outside of Liberal Fascism, not within it. The topic was originally the book, which, while it’s probably reasonable to assume will be consonant with Goldberg’s other writings and speeches, may not be exactly the same or may even break some kind of new ground—something Scott wouldn’t be able to comment on without actually reading the book. Scott has shifted his stance out of a need to reply honestly (which, to his credit, he did when Sage pushed him on whether he’d read the book). That means, however, that he’s talking about Goldberg in general instead of of Liberal Fascism in particular, which, while similar, Sage seems to imply aren’t exactly the same. I haven’t read the book, though, so I can’t comment on any alleged dissonance between the two.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

In reply to Scott, it seems he hasn’t paid much attention even to the Heritage speech he cites, in which Goldberg explicitly denies that his thesis is as Scott represented it. He also begins his rhetorical question, “If modern liberalism is “liberal fascism … ‘” But Goldberg never says that modern (by which I assume you mean contemporary) liberalism is liberal fascism. In every speech and interview that Goldberg has given, he explains the genesis of the term “liberal fascism,” which was actually coined decades ago—by a Progressive, to describe his own vision and that of the New Dealers. The term is not meant to be synonymous with modern liberalism, Goldberg does not make the claim that it is, and so again, Scott seems not to understand the entire point of Goldberg’s enterprise. Goldberg is providing, I have to say it again, an intellectual history whose purpose is to demonstrate that fascism was essentially a movement of the left, and that it is simply not the case that the further one moves right, the closer one becomes to fascism.

My suggestion to Scott if he really wants a good substantive answer to his final question: read the book and find out. The argument is not so much that certain liberal beliefs are “distinctly” fascist. Rather, it is that the substantial overlap between those beliefs lies in a common intellectual and political tradition, not some bizarre happenstance. It is a question of pedigree here, and so I find Scott’s objections strange. After all, the question is why so many of those beliefs were held in common between fascists, communists, American Progressives, and contemporary liberals. That’s the question Goldberg answers, and it’s a question worth answering, so Scott’s (modified) objections strike me as odd.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 19, 2008 05:05 PM | Send