Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning - Jonah Goldberg

Other Reading

I touch on the connection between historical European liberal facism and our own political left in the United States in my newest book, Reason For Life; Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist. I encourage you to read it, not for the meager revenue it generates, but because it could appeal to many of you on either side of the aisle.

Reason For Life. Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist

Frank Cress

Personally, I Would've Chosen Orwell's "Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism"

Liberal fascism?

It's understandable why liberals get angry when they see this book displayed. When I saw its cover and title, my first reaction to Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was to disregard it. It looked like another partisan hatchet job on liberal/progressive politics, and a tacky one at that. That impression soon disappeared, however, once I started browsing its pages. Don't let Hitler Smiley Face on the cover or its ostensibly oxymoronic title (which was actually coined by H.G. Wells back in the 1930s) fool you: LIBERAL FASCISM undoubtedly is a polemic, and not without flaws, but it's also a good book, with a startling and provocative perspective.

To give a short version to the long story behind this controversial book, Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg argues that much of modern liberalism is actually the offspring of 20th century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with both Marxism and European fascism. Throughout much of Europe the communitarian impulse expressed itself in socio-political movements that were militarist, nationalist, and often racist. In the United States this same impulse took the form of progressivism which was better suited to American culture, but no less militant in its crusading spirit, and at times just as nationalist and as racist in expression, as its fascist counterpart. The ultimate goal of American progressivism was holistic society, similar to what the writer and social critic H.G. Wells approvingly dubbed "liberal fascism." (People interested to further explore Wells' fascist/totalitarian tendencies, should read his THE SHAPE Of THINGS To COME, which speculates on a future course of world history from the 20th to the 22nd century.)

Like I mentioned, the book does have its flaws, most of them due to Goldberg's static and often deliberately simplistic ideas for what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative," and his refusal to consider these terms ever as relative signifiers, or to use them outside a 21st century American context.

Such a point brings me to Goldberg's habit of grouping all communitarianism/collectivism exclusively in the left corner. It's just not true. Goldberg ignores, for example, the fact that collectivism was at the heart of traditional Russian society, long predating Marxist and other forms of modern socialism. He makes no mention of the communistic aspirations at the heart of Christian millennialist sects like the Levellers and Diggers of mid-seventeenth century England, both groups being offshoots of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan New Model Army. Such historical phenomena don't fall neatly within the clearly drawn lines of contemporary America's liberal vs. conservative dichotomy. Neither does neopaganism, the occult or ethically-based vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism or a host of other things which fascinated nineteenth and early twentieth century European society as a whole. Occult and neopagan beliefs, in fact, were prominent within certain elements of Europe's Right, not its Left.

Closer to home, Goldberg does better work with the incipient fascism in 1930s American populism; correctly exposing, for instance, the left-wing roots of Louisiana governor Huey Long and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin. On the other hand, the omission of William Dudley Pelley, George Lincoln Rockwell, or movements like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion from a book focusing on fascist tendencies in American politics makes one suspicious. The aforementioned names and groups all were openly and proudly fascist--and all also shared origins in traditional American conservatism. By not mentioning any of these individuals or organizations it makes Goldberg look like he was cherry picking facts; ultimately this is more detrimental to the book's worth than either the title or the Smiley Hitler graphics of the cover.

Nevertheless, Goldberg still would've been better off, in the long run, choosing Orwell's "Oligarchical Collectivism" for the title.

Finally Someone Has Documented the Link between Wilson's "Progressive" Ideas and Fascism

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 demogogy 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.

So biased that it is impossible to get to wanted facts

I was genuinely interested in reading this, but he was so caught up with his fervor, talking points, and preconceived notions of reality that I couldn't get to the wonderfully researched history.

His thesis relies on his own (rather uninteresting, though mildly creative) manipulation of semantics. At best his arguments are eye-rolling. More disgracefully, he completely discounts general historic attitudes that were pervasive across party lines.

All in all, rather than being an informative piece, he just comes across as a condescending jerk who only loves the sound of his voice. The kind of guy that clears the room at a party.

Sick F'ing F's

How DARE you Amazon place this on my screen where I have to look at it as a RECOMMENDED book! How dare you place the image of this hateful, narrowminded, uneducated, propagandizing, hating, fearing, polarizing DETRITUS in my face! Keep this political clap trap to yourselves!