Jonah Goldberg protests my take on the title of Liberal Fascism. Some of his argument is a misreading of my post, perhaps because I was unclear--when I said that
The fascist ideal, which I'd liken to the dream of making every citizen behave like a cell within a mighty body, driven by a Great Leader functioning as the brain, was in many ways a new and pernicious vision. But the constituent parts, such as ferocious group loyalty, xenophobia, an antipathy to individualism, and the hunger for a charismatic strongman, were certainly not.
I was not listing those elements as specifically right, or left, wing, but merely as general human tendencies which became major elements of Fascism. The point is that when Goldberg says that militarism preceded fascism, and that therefore it is somehow not characteristic of fascism, I don't think this works as a defense. Any element that is characteristic of fascism will have preceded it; human nature just doesn't undergo that many rapid innovations.
I think Goldberg is actually making a valid point, which is that Fascism!=Conservatism. Fascism was a compendium of left and right wing ideology; part of what gave the movement its power was its co-option of (to my mind) some of the most appalling elements of each. The liberals who think that "Liberal Fascism" is somehow more definitionally stupid than "Conservative Fascism" are, I think, patting themselves on the back a little too hard. They didn't call themselves "National Socialists" for no reason, and pointing this out is, so far as I am concerned, God's work.
But though I am very much all for the goal of stopping people from deploying the term fascist against any conservative they happen to disagree with--and particularly libertarians, who, will their horror of both state intervention in the economy and nationalism, are literally as far from fascism politically as it is possible to get--ultimately, I just don't like inflammatory titles. I find things like "a politics of meaning" creepy, but calling it fascist isn't going to do anything except give a flutter of satisfaction to people who already hate Hillary Clinton, and alienate her sympathizers.
Isn't the entire point of calling one's political opponents fascists to "give a flutter of satisfaction" to one's fellow true believers?
It certainly isn't meant to persuade.
When Jonah turns the tables on the sanctimonious lefties by co-opting their favorite epithet, it's fun, but it's not really adding an element of thoughtfulness to the discourse.
But, as Jonah concedes, being socialist does not make on left-wing.
Your limited knowledge of the subject is revealed when you write, in apparent good faith, that "liberals who think that "Liberal Fascism" is somehow more definitionally stupid than "Conservative Fascism" are, I think, patting themselves on the back a little too hard."
No one, at least no one respectable, has argued that Fascism was conservative. However, many scholars, included the most respected scholars of fascism in the world (Paxton, Griffin, Mosse), have argued that Fascism was right-wing. Although in the discourse of American journalism, right wing and conservative are interchangeable terms, real scholars of European history do not treat those terms as interchangeable.
Also, while Zeev Sternhell has written that Fascism was 'neither right nor left', his methodology focuses the intellectual origins of fascism and the rhetoric of fascism. These two things sharply contrasted with the actions of Fascists. Indeed, the divergence between the rhetoric and ideology of Fascism has been a serious topic of study for scholars of Fascism. This is partly why the most recent scholarship on the subject, such as Robert Paxton's book, anatomizes Fascism as a political movement, not as a political ideology. When one does this, one finds that the actions of Fascists were decidedly right-wing--no matter how much Jonah tries to whitewash the persecution of homosexuals under Nazi Germany.
The problem with the book, and the hill that Goldberg can't climb (or so it seems to me), is the fact that there is a great deal of readily-accessible primary source material from the Fascists, and it almost universally refutes Goldberg's thesis. One of the things I find so strange about this discussion is that people act as though the Fascist movement happened eons ago, and we can only hazard a guess at their true motives, or whatever. But the movement is less than a hundred years old. We have plenty of primary-source material from Fascist intellectuals and leaders. And what you see, again and again, is the definition of fascism in opposition to communism and (their words, often) the Left. Not just Mussolini (though his Doctrine of Fascism is about as damning a refutation of Goldberg's book as I can imagine) but Gentile and Marinetti and Grandi and others.
The real problem with the discussion, meanwhile, is this: Goldberg's claim is so vague and ill-defined, with its parameters so shifting and its meanings so fluid, that every reaction he has to criticism seems to be "You're misrepresenting my position!" I just finished the book last week, and yet I couldn't say precisely what his intent is. And, I would argue, that's a tactical choice. It allows him to make the extreme claim, while simultaneously denying he's making it. If you go to the blog he's set up for the book, you get this really weird combination of him denying he's saying liberals are fascists in response to written criticism; and then the emails he posts which say exactly that. It's a trip, really.
What are the some of the characteristics of Fascism?
1 Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2 Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3 Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4 Supremacy of the Military
5 Controlled Mass Media
6 Obsession with National Security
7 Religion and Government are Intertwined
8 Corporate Power is Protected
9 Labor Power is Suppressed
10 Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
11 Obsession with Crime and Punishment
12 Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
I wouldn't say that's the definitive list, but I would guess that most other lists would have most of those characteristics on them.
And - funny thing, that - I don't know of any liberals who are nationalistic, or have disdain for human rights, or is into identifying a unitary enemy of the people, or who think the military needs every penny it appropriates, or think that the MSM is firmly under liberal control (or should be), or think that religion and politics should mix, or that believe corporate power should be protected or ...
It strikes me that the term 'liberal Fascist' is almost by definition oxymoronic.
Liberty, condemned to the Gallows, cares not if the Rope, and its Noose, swings down from the Right, or the Left, she hangs still.
The problem is that "right" and "left" are not very well defined categories. Obviously Adolf Hitler had little in common with Friedrich Hayek, though nowadays botg get called "right-wing."
To the extent that "left" means anything, it must mean an embrace of internationalism and equality. "Right" must mean a belief in nationalism (or at least state soverignty) and a rejection of equality.
But again, these terms have no absolute transhistorical meaning. And so the discussion about whether fascism was "left-wing" is almost entirely stupid.
By the defintion I gave above, it was indeed a movement of the right. But what does that prove? Marxism was a movement of the left and was responsible for even more murders than its bloody antagonist.
And, ironically, whatever their theoretical differences, national socialisn and Stalinist-Marixst-Leninism looked awfully similar in practice.
I attempted to read the book but couldn't get finish it. Jonah is an intellectual nitwit incapable of making a cogent argument. He likes to put of these nonsensical books with inflammatory titles that appeal to the conservative foaming at the mouth types. He is in competition with Ms. Coulter and I wish him all the best. But we should stop wasting time with his shitty book.
"I find things like "a politics of meaning" creepy, but calling it fascist isn't going to do anything except give a flutter of satisfaction to people who already hate Hillary Clinton, and alienate her sympathizers."-MM
I really don't mind antagonizing her or her sympathizers (though I still think it's foolish to call her a fascist). She and her husband have the ethics of the Soprano family. Indeed, that might even be an insult to the Soprano family.
People who are so deluded as to support her, despite her neverending scandals--from miraculous gains in the futures market to Norman Hsu, deserve a little jazz from the rest of us.
Richard Nixon was quite corrupt, but he looks like a saint next to the Clintons. And yet one feels obliged to give them credit: they are adept at fooling a lot of ill-educated people. "There's a sucker born every minute," as PT Barnum reportedly said.
ScentOfViolets -
"Religion and Government are Intertwined"
Define "religion" here, please, for the sake of clarity. Is Kim Jong-il's atheistic cult of personality considered a religion? For that matter, Thomas Jefferson led the nation in prayer on Sundays. Is that "religion and government, 'intertwined?'" Are we referring to God-related values? God-related icons and ceremonies? Or simply general patterns of behavior, whether God-related or not?
"And - funny thing, that - I don't know of any liberals who are nationalistic..."
I know plenty who are pro-statist and favor a larger, more powerful government (which, I guess, they ironically hate?)
"...or have disdain for human rights."
I've known plenty who have believed that the collective good was more important than the rights of individuals. They didn't hold this to the point of killing anyone outright that I'm aware of (not seriously.) Of course they were, themselves, typically very nice caring people. But that's not the point. That type of morality, the sacrifice of individual rights for the public good via the state, is exactly what we're talking about here.
"Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause"
Anybody but BusHitler? Honestly, liberal hatred for conservative icons seems to run just as strong, if not far stronger than conservative hatred for liberal icons. I've spent a lot of time looking into just this point, and didn't believe it at first, and I've found that conservatives were far more likely to give a balanced judgement of those that they considered their adversaries, acknowledging, at least, when those adversaries did things that matched their values.
Bush helped make the same-sex adoption process easier, for instance. How much have we heard of that? But how many liberals do you know who could give a list of characteristics that they admired about strongly conservative opponents? Some can, but their numbers are certainly fewer.
Corporate Power is Protected
Hitler nationalized many industries. This is a little vague, and mostly true only in comparison with other highly statist forms of government like Communism. Is a mandatory ethanol subsidy a 'protection of corporate power?'
Megan writes: "They didn't call themselves 'National Socialists' for no reason, and pointing this out is, so far as I am concerned, God's work."
But they didn't call themselves "National Liberals", did they? And they explicitly said that what they meant by "socialism" was not what Marxists meant by "socialism".
rickm brings up the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The original Nazi movement included some prominent homosexuals, like Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA (stormtroopers or "brownshirts"), and has been described as having a notable strain of "homo-eroticism" (Peter Viereck, Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind). I don't doubt that when in power the Nazis persecuted homosexuals. But why the apparent contradiction? Could it be that the totalitarian Nazi state, because it incorporated much more than the original ideological zealots, took on many of the characteristics of the larger German society, including anti-homosexual prejudice? If that is the case, then the persecution of homosexuals had much less to do with Nazi ideology as such than did the persecution of Jews or communists. Does anyone have an opinion on this?
rwe,
If you think Nixon and the Clintons are corrupt and Sopranos-like, I hope no one ever shows you a newspaper from 2001-2009. You'll piss yourself.
Megan writes:
That comment is just plain inane when you consider what the East Germans called themselves - the German Democratic Republic - and many other nations and political parties have done exactly the same thing, given themselves a name that suggests a philosophy opposite to what they actually represent!
If you think Nixon and the Clintons are corrupt and Sopranos-like, I hope no one ever shows you a newspaper from 2001-2009. You'll piss yourself.
Laughing, probably, given how newspapers in that timeframe simultaneously brought us Jayson Blair et al, and a lot of hyperventilated rhetoric about the dangers of unvetted and fabricated information on t3h bad Internets!.
"If you think Nixon and the Clintons are corrupt and Sopranos-like, I hope no one ever shows you a newspaper from 2001-2009."
Hey Woody, when have you heard me singing the praises of the current administration? I have no great love for President Bush.
If the Democratic Congress has evidence of real corruption, then it should impeach him. If there is no such evidence, though, Bush's accusers ought to shut up.
I myself have seen plenty of evidence of incompetence in the Bush administration, but nothing like the corruption of the Clinton years. And, of course, Bill Clinton was impeached.
ScentOfViolets -
An interesting article about how Nazi-ism tried to overwrite religion rather than simply mix conventional religion with the state. link
I agree that calling liberals fascists is ridiculous even if there are some aspects of liberalism that are consistent with fascism. I don't think Hitler would have a lot of problems with the Kennedy statement "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"-(yes I know the next statement in Kennedy's state of the union is universal but the second part is usually left out).
What I would like is for people on the left to acknowledge that that calling everyone on the right fascist is also ridiculous. Libertarians have much less in common with fascists than leftists do (for good or bad). I was especially appalled at the slandering of Leo Strauss. He has been called a Nazi when his philosophy was partially a response to fascism and a serious meditation on how societies can be saved from that threat.
Goldberg's claim is so vague and ill-defined, with its parameters so shifting and its meanings so fluid, that every reaction he has to criticism seems to be "You're misrepresenting my position!"
Which provokes a variant of the GOP challengers' response to Mitt Romney: "your position on which page?" It's a book that's nigh-on poststructuralist when it comes to definitions and identity; in fact, the analogy that comes to mind is Lynch's Lost Highway.
I was not listing those elements as specifically right, or left, wing, but merely as general human tendencies which became major elements of Fascism.
Fooled me too. What's more, the logic of it seems a little, um, strained: there are a whole lot of human characteristics that are generally shared, whether right or left. It's unclear to me whether loving your children and liking sweets tell us anything much either. But you listed your things as characteristic of fascism; Jonah in his reply, and several of us in comments pointed out that they are at least as characteristic of the "left" as the "right", and actually rather more. I don't think now saying you didn't mean them as characteristic of fascism is very convincing.
BTW, the offer to buy you a copy of the book still stands. Since he no more suggests that liberals equal fascists than you do, it might help you avoid another ignorant strawman.
Violet, you might want to read the book too, since Jonah addresses every one of your points, with footnotes.
So, Megan, is your sole objection to the book that it's title is unnecessarily provocative? I suppose a good argument could be made that Jonah would have attracted more readers with a kinder and gentler title, but given that the book's soon to be number 3 on the NYT's best seller list, the argument would have to be made in the face of the evidence.
If you won't read the book, at least listen to Glenn (Instapundit) and Helen's podcast of their interview with Jonah. It's an interesting listen and they discuss the cover of the book (Jonah was against it, but was persuaded by the publisher).
I must say that I've found a lot of the arguments critical of the book a bit silly.
Jonah's main theme seems to be that fascists weren't conservative at all but were liberals. The legitimacy of this idea is certainly debatable, but the accusations made by many--that Jonah is calling Liberals fascists--doesn't really make sense to me.
To assert that the fascists were liberals does not mean that you believe, in turn, that liberals are fascists. All New Yorkers may be Americans, but not all Americans are New Yorkers.
In my mind, liberal thought in the last few centuries can be divided into two camps: evolutionary and revolutionarily.
Your evolutionary liberals were moderate or radicals (though tending towards the moderate spectrum), but felt that their particular utopian/egalitarian vision could be realized by utilizing established institutions. Chief among these institutions was the democratic process. Hence, in the 20th century, the evolutionary liberal is a democratic liberal. FDR, etc.
In turn, the revolutionary liberal may have a fairly moderate (say, the New Deal or Socialism) or radical (e.g. communist) vision of what the world should look like. But he feels that existing institutions are insurmountable barriers to the establishment of an otherwise attainable and self perpetuating utopia.
Hence, the appeal of fascism. Your revolutionary is tempted to believe that if a strong enough political figure arose, he could marginalize undesirable political and social forces and realize, for the common man, his dreams of health, wealth and happiness.
The appeal to fascism in such a context is understandable. Fascism is tempting when one considers what could be accomplished politically and economically if those pesky Democrats or those damn Republicans could be sidelined. After all, if fascism truly worked, and didn’t lead to mass bloodletting, what serious objections could we make to the system? Fascists didn’t believe their system would be an unmitigated failure. They thought... well… that it was going to be a thing of beauty. Good, marshaling the forces necessary to defeat evil.
I think that the tendency to define fascists by their respective ideological bogeymen (the bourgeois, Mao’s teachers, Hitler’s Jews, etc.) is a bit foolish. Evangelical Christians, atheist libertarians, minorities, radical Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, Russians, Mexicans etc., all have individualized bogeymen whom they see as ‘the problem’. What defines fascists in my estimation, is not who fascists view as obstacles to the fulfillment of their ideology, but how they feel those obstacles should be addressed. To put it another way, the common element of fascist states in not necessarily their enemies, but the political mechanism they employ to deal with them, i.e., the brutal strongman, as well as their modus operandi: the utopia justifies the means.
Of course, the fascist dictator who has the absolute power to establish peace and justice also has the power to invade Poland, kill Jews or build gulags. While these ends were certainly predictable (Lord Byron’s axiom damns fascism pithily) and were predicted, the innate appeal of fascism made it a viable political force until it was thoroughly discredited by the legacy of the fascists themselves.
That’s why I think there’s good reason for delving into the history of fascism. Today, we tend to define fascists by what they did, by their exponents and by the fruits of their ideology. But it’s fairly pointless for society to guard against sinister political figures who advocate mass bloodletting. There’s no appeal and therefore no threat from such figures. This is what fascists become.
The neofascists, should they ever arise, will not froth at the mouth. Their policies will be as sensible as yours and mine. E.g., they too, will believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against; nothing controversial there. But they’ll want to fine or arrest anyone who engages in ‘hate speech.’
If we buy into the narrative that fascists are all giggling creepy, nasty, bloodsucking madmen whose horns are evident from the start, who specifically want to oppress Jews (that’s how you can tell a fascist you know. The Jew thing) rather then people with messages of hope and salvation, we might be neck deep in hate speech laws (an easy example, as that sort of thing is going on now and therefore believable. See Mark Stein) before we think to appropriately apply the label fascism. I.e., fascism aspires to be and sells itself as benevolent.
More ranting from quoth… later.
Ah, yes, I forgot to make my point.
It isn’t a liberal ideology that makes fascism ugly; fascism becomes ugly in the implementation of Any ideology, whether it was reasonable or not. Revolutionary liberalism was simply the political lab rat that made the unfortunate discovery, and it is, in any case, a distinct animal from for Democratic Liberals who never walked down that dark road.
Or that’s what I think anyway Comrade.
Ah, yes, I forgot to make my point.
It isn’t a liberal ideology that makes fascism ugly; fascism becomes ugly in the implementation of Any ideology, whether it was reasonable or not. Revolutionary liberalism was simply the political lab rat that made the unfortunate discovery, and it is, in any case, a distinct animal from the Democratic Liberals who never walked down that dark road.
Or that’s what I think anyway Comrade.
On homoeroticism Fascism had a strongly "masculinist", not in the modern masculine movement sense, orientation. The admiration and praise of "manly virtue" (courage, camraderie, hierarchy, etc) and general manliness at times could seem homoerotic and not without good reason. For example Hitler admired Sparta and was apparently tolerant to Rohm at first. Women were also seen as submissive or outright inferior to a degree not very common in Communism. Nazi women guards were rarely if ever trusted with guns so usually beat their victims to death rather than having the option of shooting them. I think the homoeroticism is a bit less with Italian Fascism, but the idolizing of the masculine existed and it's possible for some that that mixed with sexualization.
Still considering the era it's probable to likely that most Nazis saw homosexuality as a mental illness from the get go. They may have tolerated it for a time, but ultimately they believed in euthanizing the mentally ill and it might've been impossible for them to justify not persecuting homosexuals at some point.
Still the Communists also persecuted homosexuality while simultaneously attracting homosexuals so in this instance it's maybe not significant. (Except the justifications the two groups used may differ)
Re: They didn't call themselves "National Socialists" for no reason
They called themselves National Socialists because in the 20s and 30s, in Europe, "Socialism" had a positive connotation, especially for working people, and the Nazis needed public support in order to enter the government (duh). But calling themselves "socialist" no more made them socialist than Zhironovsky calling his party "Liberal Democratic" made it either. Why is it so hard to understand that the Nazis were perfectly capable of lying propaganda?
Re: But though I am very much all for the goal of stopping people from deploying the term fascist against any conservative they happen to disagree with
Here I agree with you: "Fascist" should be banned from use except in purely historical discussion. Likewise "Socialist" should be banned except when discussing political movements which adopt the term themselves.
Re: Supremacy of the Military
???
In what way was the German or Italian military "supreme"? neither Mussolini nor Hitler were military figures (you can of course make that case with Franco). In both countries the military was firmly under the control of the civilian government. Whatever fascism was, it was not simply a military junta.
Re: Religion and Government are Intertwined
Nonsense. Religion an government have been intertwined in Europe (and most of the rest of the world) since antiquity. Fascism did not oppose religion (as long as the churches knew their places) but it did not explicitly endorse religion either, in the manner that the old Throne and Altar conservatism had. Fascism merely inherited the Church-State confluence from the past and made no effort to alter it.
Re: Corporate Power is Protected
Also nonsense. Corporations were expected to toe the party line too, and to function for the good of the State. Those which did not found themselves nationalized, then sold to some party crony would would run them as Il Duce or Der Fuhrer directed.
Jonah's main theme seems to be that fascists weren't conservative at all but were liberals.
But, Quoth, he has denied that he is saying that many times. See, for example, the Salon interview, the blog for the book NRO has set up, the Corner, the Daily Show interview, etc.
Per Dave Neiwert, a major problem with Jonah's book is that, in trying to draw a through line from the ideological roots of fascism to um, Hillary Clinton and the modern American left, he almost entirely ignores the inconvenient presence of real-life American fascists, i.e. the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation.
He must do that, though, because it's rather difficult to stress the fascist roots of American liberals when such more robust examples of fascism exist, and indeed are creatures of the right. The reactionary Klan et. al. share with the Italian Fascists and Nazis the defining fascist belief in palingenesis of the nation achieved through the elimination of internal enemies (usually identified as weak, inferior, treasonous, poisonous to the health of the state, etc.).
Goldberg shied away from Neiwert's criticism, saying quite unsatisfactorily that (paraphrase): 'Nobody gives a crap about the Silver Shirts'.
It's also been very amusing to count the times Goldberg chides critics for eliding the differences between the left-right divide on the Continent versus in America ... while doing precisely that many times in his book and in his responses to criticism.
I am very much all for the goal of stopping people from deploying the term fascist against any conservative they happen to disagree with--and particularly libertarians, who, will their horror of both state intervention in the economy and nationalism, are literally as far from fascism politically as it is possible to get-
I'm very much for the goal of stopping people from so easily identifying themselves a "libertarians." In virtually every case they are sophomoric, sheltered jackasses. A great test for the self-proclaimed jackasses was the Iraq Invasion (and was the invasion...fascist in any way?? Hmm). Under what tenet of Libertarism was the Iraq Invasion justified? Way to hold true to your principles. (And really, Bush--who supports a constitutional ammendment to outlaw Queer Marriage--is about the least libertarian prez since F. Roosevelt.)
Just because you (somehow still) think it sounds cool at a cocktail party to call yourself a "libertarian" doesn't mean you're not really an intellectually arrested right-wing hack.
Oh God...the spectacle of Meagan McArdle and Jonah Goldberg treating each other's arguments as serious discourse.
"I find things like "a politics of meaning" creepy, but calling it fascist isn't going to do anything except give a flutter of satisfaction to people who already hate Hillary Clinton..."
Well, that's really the whole point of the book, is it not?
I mean, does a sod like Goldberg really think he can write a book entitled Liberal Fascism and have it considered and debated by a wide range of readers who just somehow aren't aware that he's a festering lesion on the ass of conservative punditry?
He knows who his target demographic is.
I think it's a mistake to view National Socialism as the archetypical version of fascism. The Nazis really had no intellectualized guiding ideology--it was pretty much whatever prejudices and views Hitler and some of the other top leaders felt at the time. Fascism's intellectual leader was Mussolini, and by comparing Fascist Italy (or Fascist Spain) with Nazi Germany, you can see the fundamental differences. (It's the same with Imperial Japan. You occasionally see Imperial Japan described as fascist, but it really was something entirely different.) The equation of Nazism with fascism was really something the Soviets did, to distance the "Socialism" in National Socialism from the socialism in Communism. I haven't read Goldberg's book yet, but I suspect that this might make a difference.
Epstein's Mother wrote:
"The equation of Nazism with fascism was really something the Soviets did, to distance the "Socialism" in National Socialism from the socialism in Communism. I haven't read Goldberg's book yet, but I suspect that this might make a difference."
No its not. You are completely wrong. You are either lying or are simply ignorant.
Go do some actual research and look at the US press accounts of Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s (as early as 1923). They consistently referred to Nazism as Fascism.
I see the lightweights are out again (with their usual plethora of cites and quotes to support their flat declarative style. Learned at the knee of Heinlein, no doubt.)
Megan might as well have introduced "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" as a topic of serious discussion.
The fact of the matter is, if there is any group affiliated with Fascism in the U.S. today, it's the right. As per my little checklist, or the multitudes of similar ones. Anyone who wants to talk about 'liberal fascists' better be prepared to condemn the current crop of Republicans in Congress, the current administration, and the last four or five confirmations for the supreme court.
The fact of the matter is, if there is any group affiliated with Fascism in the U.S. today, it's the right.
Yeah, I hate that "flat declarative style," too.
But in all seriousness, there is no group affiliated with Fascism in the US today, yet people on the American right must put up with constant accusations of fascism. He may be a fool, but he's no worse than the liberal pundits who refer to the "Taliban wing of the Republican party."
They didn't call themselves "National Socialists" for no reason, and pointing this out is, so far as I am concerned, Godwin's work.
Fixed that for you.
An allegory:
There are three monsters.
One monster is all blue, though dead.
There is another monster, with some other colors, but lots of skin that is blue.
There is a third monster, with a few small spots of blue, who shed some of his blue skin when he molted decades ago.
Jonah Goldberg: LOOK!!!! MONSTER 3 HAS SMALL BLUE SPOTS!!!! AND NOBODY REMEMBERS BUT ME--with such detail and such care--HOW MUCH BLUE ITS SKIN USED TO HAVE!!!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT MONSTER 1 WAS ALL BLUE!!!!!!
Questioner: But are you arguing that Monster 3 is exactly like Monster 1?
Jonah: Absolutely not, I said nothing of the sort. BUT DID YOU NOTICE THE BLUE SPOTS ON MONSTER 3!!!!
Q: But what about Monster 2, he looks a lot more like Monster 1?
Jonah: You are foolishly arguing that blueness is only a characteristic of Monster 2, when it's ultravioletly a phenomenon of Monster 3.
this is an amusing exercise in pseudo intellectualism.
My favorite part is Goldberg's reply to the argument about ethnic purity.
"Third, you know who was obsessed with ethnic purity? American progressives and liberals."
He then goes on to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. As if finding some early 20th century racists in the progressive movement is indicative of widespread focus on ethnic purity amongst today's Liberals.
The irony is that Jonah's own magazine, National Review, wrote some pretty racist stuff as close as the 1960's.
http://www.outsidethetent.com/wp/archives/national-review-takes-a-trip-down-memory-lane/
"The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation."
"he sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." this last one by William F Buckley Jr.
This is exactly what Niewert was talking about and Jonah avoided responding too. Jonah is a sophist. His avoidance of the racism and fascist-like tendencies of his own intellectual fathers is pretty damning.
It is a mistake to suppose that the National Socialists called themselves that merely for propaganda purposes; examples of other parties or states who misnamed themselves intentionally do not prove a thing. The Nazis were a folkish party, one specifically built on a brand of populism over 75 years in the making. Socialism had been a major factor in German politics for at least two generations before Hitler began winning elections, so it wasn't like they could repudiate it outright. Rather, they rejected the Marxist version of socialism (yes, Virginia, Marx was neither the first nor the only socialist theorist).
Ever wondered why communism and fascism seemed to appear "suddenly" and simultaneously in so many places 'round the globe, from Germany to Italy, Russia to China, Spain to Latin America? Hmm, maybe there was a common source for both ...
And, Eric H, arguing that because other parties used their name for propaganda purposes does not necessitate that the Nazis did the same thing, does not undermine the initial point.
Gee, Rob Lyman doesn't know what a conditional is, let alone modus ponens or modus tollens.
Rob, there's a reason why I - and many others - consider you a lightweight. Hint: it's not because you're a right-winger. Though quite possibly you are a right-winger because you are a light-weight.
And I repeat - the fact of the matter is, from everything from the protection of corporations, to cronyism, to explicit appeals to a 'Christian' nation, to contempt for basic human rights, it is the right that is far more fascist than the so-called 'liberals'.
And of course, Robbie, if you want cites, I'll be happy to give them, if you want to pretend that you don't see what's going on under your nose ;-)
From wikipedia:
Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Please note the "opposition to political and economic liberalism" part of this definition. What ever the rest of the story about Fascism, to be a fascist, you must oppose political and economic liberalism. By definition, you can't be a liberal and be a fascist. If you embrace all the other parts of the definition, but also embrace left-wing though, you are not a Fascist, you are crazy, because embracing anti-communism and corporatism require that you also hate left-wing thought. If you embrace communism and left wing thought, and you like the other parts, you are a totalitarian communist.
It is similar to claiming black is white, or blue is red. The definition of red precludes being blue. The definition of Fascist precludes being left-wing or liberal. It is orwellian to say "liberal Fascist" for this very reason.
I don't know where Megan gets this crap about taking the worst parts of left wing though. I'd like to see the blog post on that subject, because I imagine it will be up to her usual standards of quality, like this statement "The liberals who think that "Liberal Fascism" is somehow more definitionally stupid than "Conservative Fascism" are, I think, patting themselves on the back a little too hard." She doesn't even bother to check what a commonly accepted definition of the word Fascist might be before blogging about it.
" In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Simply put, one of the major components of fascism is the opposition to political and economic liberal thought. You can see it in this famous poem, that we all know but somehow Jonah forgets to mention.
Take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
...the cover of the book (Jonah was against it, but was persuaded by the publisher).
If true, this undercuts Jonah's credibility. Why would a person, purportedly presenting serious and scholarly work, concede to a front page design and a title that completely undercuts their thesis and was sure to become the focal point of criticism?
Jonah also uses the book's cover on his own blog. He wholeheartedly endorses the cover.
David Walser said:
"they discuss the cover of the book (Jonah was against it, but was persuaded by the publisher)."
As RICKM points out, one look at Goldberg's blog tells you this is clearly a lie.
Ryan W said:
"Honestly, liberal hatred for conservative icons seems to run just as strong, if not far stronger than conservative hatred for liberal icons..."
I don't think anyone, anywhere, even conservatives, thinks this passes the laugh test.
Goldberg's entire reason for being is to shred every liberal icon, to paint every liberal icon as a tyrant, a fool, a racist, or worse.
There was a comment on The Corner quite a while ago that someone there wanted to dig up Thurgood Marshall and hang his corpse.
It's funny to see all the leftists here getting so upset about Jonah Goldberg. He's not a serious guy, and he won't convince many people of his silly thesis, so why get so upset?
I write this as a man of the right (some might call me libertarian, and some conservative): His articles are almost unreadable. They're just not worth taking seriously. Actually, it's sad that the magazine of William Buckley has deteriorated to the point where it hires such talentless writers.
So my advice to the leftists is to calm down. He isn't worth all the aggravation. Unless of course you need some excuse to fulminate against supposed right-wing depredations as a kind of catharsis, in which case, go right on ahead.
SoV, even accepting your list as 100% perfect, I can't agree with your interpretation of it. Conservatives aren't the ones showing disdain for the human right of free speech on college campuses (or, in Canada, in major newsweeklies); Conservatives aren't trying to asssert government control over mass media through the Fairness Doctrine. Liberals (at least some of them) certainly identify "corporations" as an enemy of the people, and they're also the ones who imply that military supremecy is desireable, through the "chickenhawk" slur. On the question of religion, there are a goodly number of religious leftists who argue that welfare is Christian charity, and also a goodly number of leftists/liberals who worship at non-traditional alters such as environmentalism or veganism (I don't mean to disdain veganism or a genuine concern for nature here, but some people's devotion is quite religious).
Conservatives win on nationalism and corporate power, and also on crime, although calling it an "obsession" is a but much. I'm also at a loss for genuine evidence that cronyism is a conservative problem, even if it is certainly a Bush II problem.
Accepting your list uncritically, the American right tilts slightly more towards fascism than does the American left. But it's hardly a blowout, and distance between a Republican and a real fascist is at least as great as the distance between a Democrat and a real Communist.
This piqued my curiosity:
Rob, there's a reason why I - and many others - consider you a lightweight.
Who are these "many others," and how much time do all of you spend discussing my intellectual powers? Do you and liberalrob and Freddie and brooksfoe all get together for beer once a week evaluate my latests posts?
Liberals should "calm down" rwe?
Please re-read your drooling crazy anti-Clinton rant.
Project much?
Rob, I seem to have overlooked the church where the environmentalists and vegans gather to plot and pray for religious domination.
Perhaps it's hidden behind the 2000 member reactionary right wing pro-government, anti-liberal church down the street where Christians gather to plot and pray for religious domination.
I. "Do you and liberalrob and Freddie and brooksfoe all get together for beer once a week evaluate my latests posts?"-Rob Lyman
Hey Rob, not so long ago you were defending Freddie. Maybe you regret it now. He is, to borrow a phrase, "the buffoon who got himself taken seriously," at least by a few.
II. "Liberals should 'calm down' rwe? Please re-read your drooling crazy anti-Clinton rant."-Jim"
Yes, Jim, the liberals here who are very upset about Jonah Goldberg should calm down. He's not worth it. Are you really comparing Jonah Goldberg--a guy who writes (poorly) for a magazine and isn't particularly influential--with a former President of the United States and his wife (who might well be our next President)?
Anyway, nothing in my earlier post could reasonably be called a rant. It was actually somewhat jocular. I know liberals have a reputation for humorlesness, but did you really not notice the jokes about the Sopranos?
rwe-
Jonah also has a widely syndicated column that appears in many popular US newspapers. You forgot that important fact.
Jonah also has made his rounds on the media circuit--appearing on numerous popular TV shows. His ideas need to be combated and mocked. Its also great fun.
"His ideas need to be combated and mocked. Its also great fun."-rickm
Well go ahead if you enjoy it. I might even join in myself. But there are far more influential conservatives--Rush Limbaugh, for example. And also far more intelligent ones, like William Buckley, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and numerous academics like Robert Barro, Gary Becker, etc... (noting that some of them prefer to be called "classical liberals", but are usually called "conservative").
Rob, I seem to have overlooked the church where the environmentalists and vegans gather to plot and pray for religious domination.
Clearly there is no literal Supreme Church of Veganism, although I am on record as calling for its creation. But I presume that decrying the influence of religion in politics, if it isn't merely an opportunity to cynically cloak political disagreement in high-minded rhetoric, must be based on the proposition that revelation is no substitute for reason. Alternatively, you could say, as some do, that it's wrong to impose one's personal morality on the public at large.
The devotion of some people (not all) to causes such as animal rights and environmentalism borders on the religious, which ought to make their advocacy objectionable to those who object to mixing religion and state.
This is nonsense:
"The devotion of some people (not all) to causes such as animal rights and environmentalism borders on the religious, which ought to make their advocacy objectionable to those who object to mixing religion and state."
So, because *some* people who support animal rights and protecting the environment believe in those causes, um, a lot, those of us who favor a separating religion and politics should object to their cause?
Some people are passionately devoted to gun rights, some tax reduction, some cleaning up toxic waste sites, some protecting forests, some even are devoted to fighting wars. The devotion that some have to these causes does not discredit that cause--nor does it meant that the devotion is religious, unless one defines religious so loosely as to mean unshakable and passionate conviction. Defining religion that way is offensive to religious people.
That's stupid, even for you, Meg. Christ almighty, just when it seems like the vacuum is filled, you continually find new ways to suck.
rickm, if a passionate and revelatory approach to activism is just fine by you, what's wrong with mixing religion and politics? I see no reason why we should attempt to exclude religious believers from arguing for (or, when in power, implementing) the things they passionately believe in, nor any reason that we should single out followers of conventional, well established religions for special mistreatment.
While I think the formal church hierarchy and the formal mechanisms of government should be separate, that isn't what you mean by "separating religion and politics," is it? Because, if that's what you're fighting for, you've won, and you can stop fighting now.
David Walser: Jonah was lying. I create book jackets for a living. NO. COVER. EVER. Gets printed without the author's explicit approval. NONE.
Period.
I write this as a man of the right (some might call me libertarian, and some conservative)...
So my advice to the leftists is to calm down. He isn't worth all the aggravation. Unless of course you need some excuse to fulminate against supposed right-wing depredations as a kind of catharsis, in which case, go right on ahead...
But there are far more influential conservatives--Rush Limbaugh, for example. And also far more intelligent ones, like William Buckley, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and numerous academics like Robert Barro, Gary Becker, etc... (noting that some of them prefer to be called "classical liberals", but are usually called "conservative").
Posted by rwe
Hilarious. You poor creatures on what is left of the political right in the U.S. are so far out of equilibrium (and Librium) from having been spun your entire lives, you can barely tell your right from your left, much less recognize the real conservatives, liberals and libertarians among the population. rwe doesn't belong to any of those groups ("classical" or "baroque") and neither does anyone he has mentioned. McGargle isn't even a libertarian. No wonder a hack like Lodepants can write such a pile of drek and have people actually discuss it as if it were worthy of the effort. Political life in the fun house mirror.
Clown Hall Conservative,
Are you part of the ICP? Judging by the quality of your writing, I would bet that you are.
Is it really plausible that an author didn't have veto power over the cover of his own book? He wanted to give liberals a poke in the eye, and that's fine, but now he seems very annoyed that everyone's treating his book like that.
"Wait! Wait! I'm serious, guys! They chloroformed me and snuck the cover on in the middle of the night."
Pathetic.
rwe: "She and her husband have the ethics of the Soprano family." Really? The Clintons have people violently murdered? Even your pals at NR think that's going too far.
"Richard Nixon was quite corrupt, but he looks like a saint next to the Clintons." Really? Did the Clintons order anyone to break into the psychiatrist's offices of their public enemies, the way Nixon did for Daniel Ellsberg? Did the Clintons order a political opponent's offices to be *bombed,* the way Nixon did for the Brookings institution? (And yes, he was quite serious about it. Read "Abuse of Power.") Did the Clintons have anyone break into the offices of the RNC? For that matter, did the Clintons deliberately out a CIA agent for political gain? Didn't think so.
"Honestly, liberal hatred for conservative icons seems to run just as strong, if not far stronger than conservative hatred for liberal icons..." Willie--wow. Did not know about the Thurgood Marshall quote. (Can you find a link?) Let's see… Ann Coulter called for the New York Times building to be blown up in 2002, which would thus result in the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Any liberal matched that? No.
Jerry Falwell spent millions of dollars planting false information that Clinton ran a drug ring & had his enemies killed. Lest you think Falwell was marginal, Ted Olsen, who later became Solicitor Gerneral, was involved. Has any liberal has high-ranking as Ted Olsen spent that kind of money knowingly spreading lies about Bush?
rwe-
Nixon also, before he was elected, told the President of South Vietnam to not sign a peace deal with America, because when Nixon got elected, he would give him a better deal.
The war went on for well over four years after that, and over a million more people died. And Nixon was worse than Clinton?
rwe: "She and her husband have the ethics of the Soprano family." Really? The Clintons have people violently murdered?
Heavens no, they just took the same approach to self-dealing transactions, funds held in trust, and conflict-of-interest rules.
Actually, I've never seen The Sopranos, so I can't comment on their ethics.
Jonah's main theme seems to be that fascists weren't conservative at all but were liberals.
But, Quoth, he has denied that he is saying that many times. See, for example, the Salon interview, the blog for the book NRO has set up, the Corner, the Daily Show interview, etc.
Freddie, you are exactly right. To quote from the Salon interview you refered to:
Salon: And you say you're not calling liberals Nazis, but...
Jonah: I must say it 25 times in the book.
I certainly do not believe that modern US liberals are Nazis either, or that all liberals in the 20th century were sympathetic to fascism.
But Jonah's assertion that liberals aren't Nazis doesn't mean that the original Nazis Weren't Liberals. Not all white men are serial killers. Indeed most are not. But serial killers Are mostly white.
It also doesn't mean that the liberals who supported fascism thought that it was going to be a complete disaster. People who supported the Nazis or the communists weren't anticipating the disaster their leaders would foist upon them. The liberal visions that their peoples hoped that their fascist leaders would produce, and the visions that were Actually Created by those leaders, were very different.
I don't think that we can disassociate fascism with liberalism simply because the policies that fascists Leaders imposed were barbarous and illiberal. I'm suggesting that the average fascist did not resemble or anticipate the savages and madmen who eventually ended up leading them. You can support policies little to the left of FDR and support fascism to implement the same policies. But if your leader goes mad with power, it doesn't follow that:
1. You, who supported the rise of this leader to impose mild social policies, also support the mad decisions this leader is making.
2. You couldn't have supported this leader without knowing Exactly what he would do with his power. Therefore, his original fascist supporters couldn't have been liberals because no liberals would support actions this particular fascist dictator is taking.
To put it another way, the liberals who naively supported fascism were the victims of bait and switch. They Thought that they were getting socialism by force, but they Got whatever their new masters felt like dishing out.
Or so sayeth Quoth.
All I notice is the projection rwe.
You ascribe your lack of humor and irrational hatred of all things Clinton to liberals.
Ah, OK then. Clinton is the boogie man! He had sex outside his marriage! What is it about his blowjob that facinates you people so? Really, get over it.
Eight years after Bush failed to stop terrorists from bringing down the World Trade Center, where he gave away billions to his corporate masters, where he spied on American citizens and has started an illegal war that has killed a million people and you mew about - Clinton.
Really, how can I do anything but laugh at you?
Chuckle. That rwe, way out there in La-La land. Looking over these posts, I don't see anyone, 'leftist' or otherwise, who is 'upset' with Jonah Goldberg. People here are merely pointing out that the term 'liberal fascist' is a contradiction in terms.
But pointing this out, according to rwe, is 'being hysterical'. Another deeply nonserious person, as his little thesis indicates.
Kinda like Rob. No Rob, I could care less what you 'accept'. There comes a point where one simply has to say, hey look, if 'liberals' said the sky was blue this guy would disagree - and count it as a win if you could not get him to say otherwise to boot.
Nor, as I've said for about the 200th or 800th time am I particularly 'liberal'; liberal most assuredly does not mean anyone who disagrees with a right-winger. The fact that there are a _lot_ of people like me who do not identify with liberals, would in fact consider it sport to sic their dogs on prosletyzing, patchouli-wearing wearing hippies (should they ever appear) shows just out of it the right has become.
...and particularly libertarians, who, will their horror of both state intervention in the economy and nationalism, are literally as far from fascism politically as it is possible to get...
Wow, what a great point. And, what do you know, Ms. McArdle (like the loathsome Mr. Goldberg), thinks of herself as a libertarian. And they're as far from Teh Hitler as is possible. Wow, Ms. McArdle, you're Teh Awesome!!
Is this some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law?
That Ms. McArdle is entertaining Liberal Fascism at all suggests she's a hack. Any and all criticism of Goldberg's book should be left to the well-written Michael Berube*, the tireless David Neiwert, and the incomparable The Editors. And maybe a few others. But certainly not Ms. McArdle.
*e.g., "So if Jonah Goldberg’s project is to show that liberalism is the new fascism, it probably makes sense to ask whether there’s any old-time fascism running around somewhere while the doughty Mr. Goldberg mans the perimeter. Nothing precisely like the classic stream-lined models from the 1930s, mind you, but maybe something borrowed and something blue, involving chanted loyalty oaths at campaign rallies*, or maybe imprisoning people without showing cause and denying them legal representation, or, I dunno, domestic spying and secret torture sites and bold new theories of the unitary executive. It couldn’t hurt to look!"
So apparently, I'm wrong because: I'm wrong.
Well. That was an edifying exchange.
I. "your irrational hatred of all things Clinton."
No, it's not hatred, it's more like disdain. And it's not irrational. I've given good reasons: the futures trades, the missing files, Norman Hsu. Actually, worse still is that the Clintons did such a poor job of defending the country against terrorism (even passing up opportunities to get bin Laden). See here, here, and here for instance.
Some one will respond: "but George Bush..." or "Richard Nixon...". I'm not a fan either. As I wrote above, if the Democrats in Congress have evidence that President Bush has committed serious crimes, they ought to impeach him. If they have no such evidence, they ought to avoid making baseless accusations.
II. "But pointing this out, according to rwe, is 'being hysterical'."
I have already agreed that Jonah Goldberg's argument is silly, but it did seem to me that some here were getting afwully upset about the whole thing. I wanted to save them the aggravation by pointing out that he isn't very important. I'm just a caring person, as my friends tell me so often. So I say to any of you whom Mr. Goldberg has distressed with his little book: "I feel your pain."
ScentOfViolets
I see the lightweights are out again (with their usual plethora of cites and quotes to support their flat declarative style.
As opposed to unsupported invective? The facts SHOULD speak for themselves. If you have to resort to attacking people then you're already halfway gone.
Anyone who wants to talk about 'liberal fascists' better be prepared to condemn the current crop of Republicans in Congress
There certainly are some Republicans with liberal tendencies, "W" among them. I don't believe that most liberals or most conservatives are anywhere near fascist.
My problems are with those who claim that conservatives have more fascist tendencies than liberals. Fascism is a product of 'the Right?' I was taught that in school too. But it doesn't seem to conform in any way with the fascist halotypes I've seen in the real world.
And of course, Robbie, if you want cites, I'll be happy to give them
The appropriate time to give cites is when you make your argument. Assuming that an argument actually contains facts. I'm still trying to get you to support your definition of what constitutes fascism with something other than an argument to authority. Please see the issues I noted previously.
By definition, you can't be a liberal and be a fascist.
However the defintion of 'liberal' has changed over time and you've failed to defend the definition that you gave for fascism.
from everything from the protection of corporations
Again, Hitler NATIONALIZED many corporations. He was to the 'right' of Communism, but not modern America. To say "I respect the private property rights of corporations" whether you like it or not, is to do the OPPOSITE of what Hitler did.
to explicit appeals to a 'Christian' nation
I don't like such appeals myself. But as I pointed out, Hitler promoted the worship of Hitler, not God.
contempt for basic human rights
We need to define what we consider 'basic human rights' are here and how you think conservatives are more likely to disregard them.
willie-
Ryan W said:
"Honestly, liberal hatred for conservative icons seems to run just as strong, if not far stronger than conservative hatred for liberal icons..."
I don't think anyone, anywhere, even conservatives, thinks this passes the laugh test.
Maybe 'conventional wisdom' is not the most rigerous standard of truth. Really, it boils down to 'I already know everything, so anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong.'
Check out this link to see some more evidence for my original point.
link
And, on cue, almost as if we'd rehearsed before-hand, Rob demonstrates his unseriousness yet again.
No, that is not what I said, nor what I meant, but tell you what, little man, why don't you actually quote, word-by-word-by-word anything up above that led you to think that? Feel lucky, Punk? Do ya?
I am, of course, unable to physically compell you to back up your lies, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you don't actually show where I said that, you will be derided, again, as being a wingnut.
And definitely not a grownup, i.e., someone who actually takes responsibility for his actions. That's just not your style, is it?
Gee. I say I don't see any such thing, and you say you do.
What say we settle this by having you actually quote some of this hysteria you say you found? Should be easy, right?
Let it go rwe. Seriously you should just let your anger go,
Norman Hsu compares to torture, illegal spying and the death of a million people HOW exactly? What was it he allegedly did, questionable campaign contributions? Did you call the media, because I think it has fallen off the front pages, eh? Oh shit, maybe it's Whitewater all over again!
Jesus.
I don't give two shits about Jonah Goldberg. Liars will write what liars will write. It makes no difference. Clinton's sex life isn't relevant here either, sorry.
It was 8 years ago. Let it go. Look at what's going on RIGHT NOW in your Republican administration.
Fix YOUR own rotten house before you point your crooked finger at mine pal.
One thing modern American liberalism inherits from the "classical" liberalism of Mill is the insistence on procedural justice and procedural democracy, and on the open marketplace of ideas. American liberalism also adopted Keynesian economic ideas and recognized the necessity for democratic regulation of the marketplace and the need for social safety nets, but it has above all never lost its insistence on the need for procedural democracy and the open marketplace of ideas. This is why far-left radicals in the late '60s and early '70s despised liberals, who they felt lacked the guts to make the revolutionary changes the times demanded; and it is why '60s liberals feared and often despised far-left radical campus activists, whom they often termed -- wait for it -- "fascistic". Left radicals, incoherently, returned the compliment.
Fascists believed the state should take over society and the economy, in concert with corporations and traditional religious bodies. Liberals believe the state should intervene to a limited extent in the economy and society, as a counterweight against corporations and in complete isolation from religious bodies. Conservatives believe the state should intervene to a limited extent in the economy and society, in concert with corporations and traditional religion, and to reinforce traditional moral values (the war on drugs, etc.). Libertarians believe, in principle anyway, that the state should almost never intervene in the economy or society. Communists believe that the state should take over society and the economy, in opposition to corporations and religion.
Most of these designators could be paired at random to produce a book along the lines of Goldberg's: "Communist Conservatism" (Brezhnev), "Communist Fascism" (Stalin), "Liberal Libertarianism" (examples abound), "Libertarian Fascism" (from John Birch Society to racist Idaho militia). It's idiotic to think this actually means anything; it's just a game for generating insults. I mean, "From Hegel to Whole Foods" -- there is one modern American political philosopher who indisputably traces his intellectual lineage to Hegel, and it is Francis Fukuyama. Does this mean American conservatism is basically a variety of Communism? Sure, "Conservative Communism: From Lenin to Limbaugh" would be on pretty solid ground in many ways, but come on.
rwe, the anxiety out here is that Goldberg's exercise in dezinformatsiya will succeed in confusing the very ill-informed general public about the historical political orientation of fascism. It's about as legitimate a move as Lord Haw-Haw's lines about "the Jew-lover Communist Churchill"; but that line worked on a lot of folks, too.
"Clearly there in no literal Supreme Church of Veganism"?
No shit. I guess that's why I though your comparison of the fictional Supreme Church of Vegans to an actual church was idiotic.
Irony confounds you, eh?
I thumbed through Goldberg's book at the bookstore today. Although many of the anecdotes and phenonmenon he describes are true, I hate the title of the book. The word "liberal" was hijacked by the Left in the 1930s and has come to be associated with economic policies and ideas which are the antithesis of the classical meaning of the word "liberal". The genesis of this distortion is in the Progressive Era in the US.
That said, regardless what you think about the libertarian political philosophy, it is UNDENIABLY the ULTIMATE anti-fascist philosophy.
Those people who are labeled as "liberals" or "progressives" today should in reality more accurately be called "statists". The main distinction here is in the realm of economics, where todays so-called liberals ( aka progressives ) are always in favor of state intervention in the economy via forced redistribution of wealth, massive regulation, nanny-state rules, etc. It is also no accident that many, if not most, of the people who support the concept of "national service" ( involuntary servitude - think Hitler brownshirts) are on the Left.
Many on the Left are upset about what they call "corporate power" ( which, incidently, indicates a weak understanding of economics ), but fail to understand that it is GOVERNMENT involvement in the economy more than anything else which enhances the power of corporations, especially the strongest and biggest players in the economy. Note, that the people who advocated the now discredited idea of "industrial policy" where big business and big government work hand-in-hand were/are on the Left.
I minored in political science and philosophy in college. Although that was more the 20 years ago, my old college textbooks drove home the point that in the economic realm, fascism was associated with a mixed economy, and not free markets. A classic fascist state is one in which private business is married to and/or heavily subsidized/regulated by government, wherein government and industry are effectively joined at the hip. Look at where we are today with regard to defense contractors, agricultural subsidies, corporate lobbying in Washington. And look at all of the local governments who bribe Wal-Mart and other businesses with tax breaks ( subsidies ) in order to get them to open stores to get the sales tax revenue. The problem with all of this is ultimately GOVERNMENT, not business. And it is the classic pattern of fascism.
The people who complain that there is "too much money in politics" have it backwards.
What distinguishes the US from a classic fascist state is that we do have elections and a free media. However, the Patriot Act and some of the other actions of Bush might call that into question.
I went somewhat tangential there, but the bottom line is that Goldberg's book is poorly titled, and rather shallow. But there is no denying that there are fascistic tendencies in the modern progressive movement.
I don't like such appeals myself. But as I pointed out, Hitler promoted the worship of Hitler, not God.
Please. Der Fuehrer himself:
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
"The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines, and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of to-day."
"Conservatives aren't trying to asssert government control over mass media"
Do you realize this is already the case? If you don't believe, try to start broadcasting something yourself. There are some inexpensive ways to do it I'm sure.
Hayekian wrote: "That said, regardless what you think about the libertarian political philosophy, it is UNDENIABLY the ULTIMATE anti-fascist philosophy."
Actually, wouldn't that be passivism?
Lest I quit too early...
Hayekian wrote:
"Those people who are labeled as "liberals" or "progressives" today should in reality more accurately be called "statists"."
Except that, ya know, liberals aren't agitating for the expansion of the state qua expansion of the state--they are arguing that the state can be utilized to satisfy some larger goals. In that respect they are no different than conservatives. What differs is what goals each one has.
"The main distinction here is in the realm of economics, where todays so-called liberals ( aka progressives ) are always in favor of state intervention in the economy"
Really? Liberals are ALWAYS in favor of state intervention in the economy? I dumbfounded as to how you could have wrote that sentence in apparent good faith.
"It is also no accident that many, if not most, of the people who support the concept of "national service" ( involuntary servitude - think Hitler brownshirts) are on the Left."
Yes. Because ya know, Teach for America isn't really that different from a military group designed to murder all the Jews.
"Many on the Left are upset about what they call "corporate power" ( which, incidently, indicates a weak understanding of economics ), but fail to understand that it is GOVERNMENT involvement in the economy more than anything else which enhances the power of corporations"
First of all, you are going to have to explain how criticizing corporate power (a normative judgment) necessitates a 'weak understanding of economics', which is a positive judgment. Methinks you are the one with the weak understanding.
Also, many Leftists routinely complain about government support of corporations. Thats why you hear people complaining about... corporate welfare! You don't hear about that if you base all your beliefs on the left from some fake caricature.
"I minored in political science and philosophy in college."
Did ya major in bad arguments?
Fats Durston -
I hope that you don't believe everything that politicians say. The particular quote you cited was from a 1933 speech made during Nazi-vatican negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant. This speech was given after that same Vatican EXCOMMUNICATED all Nazis. Doesn't that say anything to you, that the church was so strongly opposed to the Nazis? Don't you think that the actual actions taken by a politician once they have been vested with plenary power is a bit more significant than the public rhetoric that they throw out while still pursuing it?
If anything, the fact that the church fought so strongly against Hitler (while still trying to protect Church representatives) should speak to you, to say nothing of the church leaders that the Nazis persecuted when such leaders got in the Nazis way.
Jamey, and the rest of you who were misled by the poor wording of my post, I apologize. When I wrote:
If you won't read the book, at least listen to Glenn (Instapundit) and Helen's podcast of their interview with Jonah. It's an interesting listen and they discuss the cover of the book (Jonah was against it, but was persuaded by the publisher). (Emphasis added.)
I did not mean to say that Jonah did not have veto power over the art on his book's cover. I meant to say he was initially against the cover art and, reluctantly, decided to go with it at the urging of his publisher. Jamey, I'm sure you can come up with similar examples from your own experiance -- you pitched cover art and the author, at first, didn't like it. After discussion, the author approved the art -- perhaps enthusiastically, perhaps, reluctantly.
Returning to Glen and Helen's podcast of their interview of the Jonah, Helen told Jonah she loved the cover art. Jonah thanked her, but said it was not his idea. The publisher's art department came up with it and he had to be persuaded to use it. He was afraid it would convey the wrong message -- that he was equating liberalism with Hitler. He still has mixed feelings about the cover art, etc. How does any of this make Jonah (or me) a liar? He may have had veto authority over the art, but that doesn't mean he's being untruthful when disclaiming any great affection for his book cover.
rickm -
A few comments regarding your reply to my original post -
You stated --- "Except that, ya know, liberals aren't agitating for the expansion of the state qua expansion of the state--they are arguing that the state can be utilized to satisfy some larger goals. In that respect they are no different than conservatives. What differs is what goals each one has."
Some so-called liberals indeed are not always in favor of larger government for its own sake, but all too often that is the ultimate result. Human nature and the nature of government being what they are, the goal of self-preservation becomes paramount. Hence the common refrain that no government program ever dies.
You are correct that "liberals" are not always in favor of state intervention, but if the solution to a given economic issue is a question one of more government or less, the "liberal" will almost always favor more government involvement in the economy. It is exceedingly rare to hear anyone on the Left advocate for a lower total tax burden on the economy, or less economic regulation. That was my point.
You are also correct to imply that it is possible for someone to be knowledgeable of economics and still criticize "corporate power". But my contention was based on the assumption that it is now common knowledge that mere practicality and abundant empirical evidence since the industrial revolution, and especially in the 20th century, clearly demonstrate that the market economy is the only viable economic system. To clarify, based upon THAT assumption, I maintain that criticism of "corporate power", if it is to be taken seriously, must be based on an understanding of the NATURE of government power versus corporate power. Corporate power is checked every hour of every day by continuous feedback from customers and shareholders. Government involvement in that process necessarily distorts and short-ciruits those feedback loops. No corporation can force anyone to do anything....UNLESS it is backed by the power of the state.
I would have no problem with Teach for America IF it did not use government money extracted by force to bribe the participants.
And, we are in total agreement regarding corporate welfare. I say get rid of ALL of it.
Hitler promoted the worship of Hitler, not God.
Your words. Hitler's speeches promote the worship of God, and specifically the Christian God.
-Whether Hitler promoted the worship of Hitler is beside the point to the untruthfulness of your statement.
-Whether Hitler was lying or telling the truth about his real feelings about Christianity is also irrelevant; he promoted Christian worship (even if the Nazis clamped down on elements of Christianity later) convincingly enough that many Christians believed him.
-And finally, your "rebuttal" about the Catholic Church's reaction to Hitler likewise has nothing to do with the untruthfulness of your earlier statement.
-And, by the way, I hope you do not think that Catholic equals all Christians.
(The funniest thing is that you fail to mention that the Concordat was a quid pro quo kind of truce between Catholic leadership, which, not surprisingly, the Nazis betrayed shortly thereafter. I don't really trust your claim about papal excommunication; neither my Speilvogel nor Craig history mentions it, and why would the Nazis be excommunicated in *spring 1933* en masse?)
To get back to the ostensible topic of the thread, your argumentation is very similar to the sort of sophistry employed by Goldberg.
When shown direct evidence of Nazi/Fascist texts that make shambles of one his arguments, Jonah, like you, claims something along the lines of "I hope that you don't believe everything that politicians say," (preferably in as belittling a manner as possible) or, look at their actions, not their words. Conversely, when told that the Nazi/Fascist rhetoric did not match their actions, claim, but they said *this* (e.g., n.SOCIALIST.d.a.p.). Or, when told you've been untruthful, bring in arguments beside the point (Catholic resistance to Hitler).
Fats -
Hitler's speeches promote the worship of God, and specifically the Christian God.
Okay, so I've been trying for several posts to figure out precisely what is meant by "Religion and Government are Intertwined."
So it's enough to qualify for 'religion and the state being intertwined' (or even 'promotion of religion' for that matter) for a polititian to just talk about "God" positively in a speech, regardless of whether later actions contradict the words? "Religion and government intertwined" was put forward like it was some unusual characteristic of fascism rather than a characteristic of almost every government from the time of Hammurabi to modern America, outside of forcibly atheist communist nations. In order to make your point, you are using such a terribly low standard as to make any victory you might have completely meaningless in establishing a marker for fascism.
Here's a religiously themed flier put out by Barak Obama. Apparently starting down the road to fascism?!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080121_Obama_Mailer.pdf
I'm sorry, noone except the most evangelical atheist will buy that.
he promoted Christian worship (even if the Nazis clamped down on elements of Christianity later) convincingly enough that many Christians believed him.
So fascists may appeal to religious voters while running for office and betray them after they've gained sufficient power? Okay. If that had been the original assertion I wouldn't have argued at all.
-And, by the way, I hope you do not think that Catholic equals all Christians.
Of course.
The Catholic church's reaction seemed relevant to me since Hitler claimed to be a Catholic.
And the church basically told him "no, you're not."
I don't really trust your claim about papal excommunication
First, to clarify, the speech was given after the nazis were excommunicated, but not immediately after. I believe that the excommunication was initiated in 1930.
The funniest thing is that you fail to mention that the Concordat was a quid pro quo kind of truce between Catholic leadership, which, not surprisingly, the Nazis betrayed shortly thereafter.
Yes, exactly. It was a truce, and an unstable one. Which implies strongly that there had been hostilities (and would be more).
How else should I illustrate that the two groups opposed one another. Hitler didn't seek to be influenced by religious values. He didn't submit to the Church. He sought to dominate it through flattery if possible or force if needed, which is a different thing entirely from what was origianlly implied.
look at their actions, not their words
That seems like a damn fine idea to me. I'll go with what someone says unless their actions contradict their words in which case I'll go with their actions as their revealed preferences. You would do otherwise?
Fats -
I do apologize this far; that the excommunication was from the Council of German Bishops rather than the Pope. I wasn't familiar enough with the workings of the Catholic church to realize bishops could even do that. I've found a few references to several actions taken by the council against active Nazi party members at various times, pre-1933.
Re: Again, Hitler NATIONALIZED many corporations.
Yes. Anything owed by Jews or other enemies of state. And most of those businesses were handed over to party cronies to run.
Re: the Nazis and Christianity
I get SO tired of this debate. It should be staringly obvious that there was nothing explicitly Christian about Naziism (unlike Franco's party which did base itself specifically on Catholicism). Yet the Nazis were seeking and then holding power in a largely Christian country so of course they had utter nice platitudes about religion. Any politician would do that. Those who quote Nazi bromides about the good of the Christian religion as sort of proof that Der Fuhrer and company were a bunch of choir boys need to answer this: do they accept similar arguments from our Religious Right portraying the American Founding Fathers as "Bible-believing" Christians because they said nice things about religion too?
Re: I wasn't familiar enough with the workings of the Catholic church to realize bishops could even do that.
A bishop can excommunicate any Catholic who is under his diocese. He does not need the Vatican's permission to do this.
SoV:
I'm sure I'm wasting my time, but just to quote the full response you gave to my discussion of your list:
Kinda like Rob. No Rob, I could care less what you 'accept'. There comes a point where one simply has to say, hey look, if 'liberals' said the sky was blue this guy would disagree - and count it as a win if you could not get him to say otherwise to boot.
You then went on to say that you are not a liberal, and claim that this was something you had said before, although with an imprecision that ill befits a statistician. I never called you a liberal, so I don't think that was part of your response to me.
Now, I take it we can agree that you think I'm wrong. Your reasons for thinking this are quoted above in full. I think a fair summary of these reasons is: "You're wrong."
Hence, my brief precis of your response.
Now, I have not doubt that you will deride me once again as a wingnut, but to be frank I'm kind of looking forward to it. Thanks to my groundless and fascistic disdain of brilliant intellectuals such as yourself, I revel in your disapproval. Also, it helps me get laid with fascist chicks.
And as an aside, I think Brooksfoe has offered the best argument to date that conservatives are fascistic, or at any rate more fascistic than liberals, through brief thumbnail sketches of political thought. Suffice to say that I think these sketches obscure a fair amount of complexity, but at least they make some degree of sense.
It is exceedingly rare to hear anyone on the Left advocate for a lower total tax burden on the economy, or less economic regulation.
In San Francisco, one of the more lefty cities in the U.S. or so I hear tell, there are nearly always regressive tax measures on the local and state ballot, sometimes several.
Lefties here tend to argue vociferously against the passage of those measures. But maybe San Francisco is unusual that way. Maybe the Left in the rest of the country always supports sales taxes and the like.
"Gee. I say I don't see any such thing, and you say you do. What say we settle this by having you actually quote some of this hysteria you say you found? Should be easy, right?"-SoV
Find where I used the word "hysteria." I'm pretty sure I didn't. You are fond of calling other people "liars." We might make the same accusation against you--I wouldn't of course, given my famously genteel manner.
I'm sure something I've said here (in a comment which seems so innocuous to me) will cause more vituperation--more attacks in your ususal hectoring style. Well, go ahead. I agree with Rob Lyman. It's quite amusing sometimes, though it gets tedious after a while.
Jonah's book reminds me of "Moby Dick", the one everyone feels so strongly about, and no one reads. It appears Johan has a whale of a problem getting a fair reading.
I couldn't find Jonah's book on sparknotes.com, but I think this thread works kinda the same way.
My only take on fascism is that it's another ideology chewed up and spit out by Capitalism, the way Capitalism chewed up Communism, now Democracy, and is now worming its way into China and India.
I think Crony Capitalism is a bigger problem, today, than any modern form of Fascism - but I think I'll start by reading Jonah's book. Sounds very interesting.
Ryan W.-
Ah. What the intertoobz were built for, arguments over whether Nazis were Christians. (Really, Jonah's book is just transmitting one side of this hoariest of discussions from phospor dots to ink and paper.) Not my point, though.
I was merely arguing that your phrase was untrue, and then pointing out the spurious nature of some of the arguing.
"Religion and government intertwined" was put forward like it was some unusual characteristic of fascism rather than a characteristic of almost every government from the time of Hammurabi ...
Agree with you wholly on this claim (except further back, Menes, man, Menes), and have even made a comparable crack about Sargon being the first liberal fascist. I just thought your counter-argument to SoV's claim contained false information, which I sought to correct.
[As an aside, I think the website http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise(n)-1.htm
might not be the most objective observer of Church complicity in dictatorships...]
I'll go with what someone says unless their actions contradict their words in which case I'll go with their actions as their revealed preferences.
So you're saying that the Christians who went along with the Nazi government, whose actions do not jibe with later anti-Nazi Christian pronouncements, reveal Christian preferences for the Nazi state?
But indeed that is not central to my point. Or wait, it is, because my point is about sophistry.
To re-rail: Jonah's arguments tying Nazis to the American "left" through approval of homosexuality are the exact sort of snippets of evidence that could be used to tie Nazis to the American right through approval of Christianity. (*If* the American center-left at present was heavier into Christianity than the American center right, and anti-gay, I have no doubt that Jonah's argument would have included my quotations above to "prove" that the Nazis were "left" and mentioned many times the arrest and execution of gay men.)
You can't have it both ways, if you're honest about evidence.
Irony confounds you, eh?
Yes, it's one of the reasons that so many, many people consider me an intellectual lightweight.
But in all seriousness, my argument was never that there is a literal building where environmentalists go to face ANWR and chant "Gaia is great!" 5 times a day. It was simply that some political and social causes have taken on some of the characteristics, rhetoric, and social function of more old-fashioned religions, and that when tallying up the influence of religion in politics, we should not ignore these new quasi-religions.
So I guess that means we can ignore the Grover Norquists of the world, who have devoted their life to reducing the size of government.
Not necessarily; a case could be made.
The real issue for me is why we object to religion in politics (for the record, I personally don't). If it's that we want to free the proletariat from the outmoded historical power structures that oppress them, then limiting "religion" to traditional chuches makes sense. If it's because we want a public policy based on reason rather than revelation, then there's an awful lot of the VLWC that is just as guilty of that as any church.
Like what exaclty? Believing that the conditions that animals are slaughtered in should be improved? That our air should be cleaner?
The devotion that some have to these causes does not discredit that cause--nor does it meant that the devotion is religious, unless one defines religious so loosely as to mean unshakable and passionate conviction. Defining religion that way is offensive to religious people.
Oh, I dunno, one famous book defined it this way:
"Now faith is evidence of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen."
Although the statement is taken somewhat out of context here, it handily and accurately describes the attitude present in many of the vocal followers of practices such as Veganism and Environmentalism, and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if these people were accused of being "religious" or having "faith" in their cause. Shoot, it's how one prominent member of the latter group got the moniker, "The Goreacle".
And that doesn't apply to say, worshipers of the free-market, or ardent Zionists?
See, I can call anything I don't like faith-based!!!
And that doesn't apply to say, worshipers of the free-market, or ardent Zionists?
It might, if there were a significant number of them with political influence, and they had a bad habit of arguing by means of ex cathedra pronouncements regarding morality and apocalyptica.
In fact, I think the argument that secular Zionists have made the Israeli cause a substitute for the Judaism they not longer practice, has already been made by several people on many occasions. Get caught up, man!
Geez, read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." The Nazis themselves would laugh at this argument; the only reason they included "Socialists" in the name of the party was that Socialism was in vogue at the time, and they wanted to co-opt that term for the right.
To take one example, consider global warming. Let’s stipulate, to avoid a pointless shouting match, that 1) it is occurring, and 2) human CO2 emissions play a very large role.
OK. First off, how do most people know this? There are undoubtedly scientists who have carefully reviewed the data and reached a reasoned conclusion. Then there are the rest of us, who, like the illiterate peasants of the Middle Ages, can’t meaningfully understand what these scientists are saying unless they translate and simplify for us. We can read what they right for Scientific American but we simply lack the necessary background to really know. So we appoint them our priests and take on faith what they say.
This is not an irrational policy; most priests probably didn’t lie to the non-reading congregation about what the Bible said, and most scientists are probably not lying to us. And science has an excellent track record generally; taking it on faith is reasonably rational decision. But the fact is that the vast majority of us are taking it on faith.
And what’s more, many people aren’t content to keep their private belief to themselves: the spittle-flecked attacks on GW-agnostics and GW-atheists are generally pretty intense. Next time you read some blog commenter lecturing another on how settled the science is, and how only EEEVILLL oil companies and their minions deny it, ask yourself if that lecturer really knows that the science is settled, or merely believes it because it’s what he was told by the people he trusts to interpret the world for him. And take note, while you’re at it, at the creation of a Satan-like enemy who needs to be defeated, the assignment of all opposition to the malign and corrupting influence of this enemy, and the implication that those who serve Satiburton are either terribly evil or terribly stupid.
Again, science generally has a good (although not perfect!) track record, so it’s not categorically wrong to take it on faith. But it is somewhat religious to do so.
And no, I’m not saying that all environmentalism is religious in nature, or that there aren’t good, sound reasons for wanting cleaner air or lower carbon emissions. But then, there are good, sound, non-religious reasons for wanting to ban abortion, stigmatize premarital sex, and reduce the availability of alcohol, too.
And keep in mind I’m ignoring the traditionally religious left, too, who do things like shaming SUV owners by asking “what would Jesus drive?” (a V8 powered 15-passenger van filled with apostles), or speak of welfare as Christian charity, or support gun control on the grounds that the Bible forbids the keeping of a vicious dog, etc.
And to answer your question, yes, I’d include those libertarians who think that Jim Crow would have been destroyed by the magic of the market and who say things like “there are no good philosophical or practical arguments against libertarianism” among non-traditional religious believers.
See, I can call anything I don't like faith-based!!!
Yes, and in many cases you'd be right. Which is precisely my point: it's stupid to bemoan "religion in politics" given how little of politics is really grounded in careful and rational review of the evidence.
One thing that's missing from this discussion is an understanding of the provenance of the modern notion of "nationalism." It was emphatically not a conversative idea; indeed, its embrace by the French Revolutionaries was one reason reactionaries like Metternich opposed it wholeheartedly. Nationalism substituted an ethnic identity for the traditional ties of religion and dynastic fealty.
The idea that liberals are unmoored from a sense of national identity is a post-1930 phenomemon, and it's peculiar to this generation of American leftists and a preceding generation of British writers - but in both cases, those people were representatives of societies that generally avoided the explicitly ethnic societal definitions of the Continental type.
ScentOfViolets:
You can make as many straw-man arguments as you like based upon your "list." Unfortunately in no credible scholarly definition of fascism are the these three items included:
7 Religion and Government are Intertwined
8 Corporate Power is Protected
9 Labor Power is Suppressed
Quite the opposite. In fascism, religion is banished from and ridiculed by the state, corporate power is co-opted by the state, and labor is celebrated and harnessed in service of the state.
Fascism is a collectivist ideology on the right-wing of the communist/socialist spectrum but most definitely to the left of liberal democracy.
But Goldberg makes all of these uncontroversial points, along with the more controversial ones, in the book.
As hard as you and others try to link fascism to contemporary Republican politics, it just won't stick.
the anxiety out here is that Goldberg's exercise in dezinformatsiya will succeed in confusing the very ill-informed general public about the historical political orientation of fascism.
I dunno. As ScentOfViolets demonstrates quite ably above, fascism is such a malleable concept that ridding it of all but historical meaning may actually be a service to political discourse.
To be reductive, I think the historical political orientation of fascism was fascism.
So you're saying that the Christians who went along with the Nazi government, whose actions do not jibe with later anti-Nazi Christian pronouncements, reveal Christian preferences for the Nazi state?
Okay, this is a bit apart from my original point, however;
I'd have to go person-by-person for a good part of the nation which I don't honestly have the background to do, but in some cases that may be true. There was certainly an anti-semetic streak among many Christians in Europe. Some Christians were probably willing to steal the property of their Jewish neighbors. I'm sure that many Christian Germans discounted the value of the lives of Jews and Romani (though it's not clear whether some had accurate information on the nature of Jewish lives, given German propaganda.) For that matter, given the tendency to send their sons off to war in that period, Germans may have discounted the value of their own lives as well in return for some promised brighter future, which is consistant with fascism. I'm certainly not trying to argue that Christians are perfect, and it's a valid question why so many failed to oppose the Nazis.
In some cases, Christians may have just been trying to be obedient as they're commanded to be (and which was written very strong into German culture), which is not the same as willingly giving "support". Otto Hahn (I don't know if he was Christian or not, but I have some familiarity with his life) was mostly anti-Nazi but very pro-German for instance and patriotic, and very slow to admit wrong done by his government. Such a stance would end up serving the Nazis. What revealed preferences are shown by a Milgram experiment? That's not easy to answer.
I also think, frankly, that attitudes may have changed considerably in reaction to the Holocaust and fascism. People can learn from history.
Or wait, it is, because my point is about sophistry.
*sigh* I've tried to remove as much sophistry as possible by referring to the individual 'halotypes,' the actual subjects themselves rather than simply using
labels and definitions as SOV wanted. Given the changing nature of the word 'liberal' from the 1930s to today (itself an effort in sophistry, which was being incorportated, perhaps accidentally into this argument) saying "Nazis were anti-liberal" and then
equating the liberals of 1930 to the liberals of today would be fairly called "sophistry." But again, I've backed up my statemens with facts as best I can. If you have different facts, you're welcome to put them forward and prove me wrong or educate me. Ad homenims aren't really helpful.
Also, there was the assertion by SOV that 'religion and state intertwined' was an aspect of fascism. That phrase doesn't accurately convey what the Nazis did in taking power. Do you think that it does? I tried for several posts to get someone to define what was meant by this, exactly, so I could apply the same standard to various groups. I offered several precise definitions. Noone responded.
Jonah's arguments tying Nazis to the American "left" through approval of homosexuality are the exact sort of snippets of evidence that could be used to tie Nazis to the American right through approval of Christianity.
Actually, this is the first time that you've listed this specific argument. And I'd agree with you to some extent, assuming you've acurately described Jonah's argument. Since capital punishement of gays is arguably biblical, harsh punishments of homosexuality under the Nazis would arguably be a conservative element of fascism (and Communism, for that matter.) I really don't see the Nazis as particularly approving of homosexuality as much as willing to overlook it at times, though perhaps I'm amiss here. One of the Nazis (Hitler?) kept a Jewish doctor. That doesn't signify acceptance of Judaism to me, all things considered.
However the modern American Right doesn't seem to be supporting corporeal punishment of homosexuals via the state. It is already fairly "liberal" in that regard.
squeak:
So you would put the food strictures of Leviticus on the same plane as global warming science?
That's what I think drives liberals up the wall: the equation of declarations of the Sky Fairy with the evidence of scientific exploration. I can, if so inclined, go make myself an expert on climate science and verify the evidence; I cannot go ring up the Sky Fairy and ask him if he really meant it when he said not to eat pork.
There are some who do take Veganism and Environmentalism on faith and treat it as a religion. No question. But not ALL do, and to blanket-label all environmentalists and vegans as religious nuts is not a fair characterization (any more than it is to label all Christians as know-nothing anti-intellectuals). Many vegans and environmentalists can cite extensive scientific evidence to back up the legitimacy of their claims (actual reproducible, peer-reviewed science, not faked-up "research" like that from the Discovery Institute in support of Intelligent Design Creationism), and that should be given due consideration before calling their advocacy "faith."
The resistance to "religion in politics" is probably more accurately described as resistance to basing the law on the Christian Bible. We are not so much anti-religious as anti-religious-laws. Religion should be a personal thing, not something you try to enforce on others with the power of the state. That's my feeling, anyway.
Ryan,
My point about my side-argument was that my argument itself was specious. Bringing in the example of "left" and "gay" and "Nazis" was just to show exactly how Goldberg's sophistry works, and likewise how nonsensical it is.
You ask to educate you. Then here:
I really don't see the Nazis as particularly approving of homosexuality as much as willing to overlook it at times
How nice of you to see that way. Gay men in Germany probably had a slightly different take than you. From the Holocaust Museum:
Denounced as “antisocial parasites” and as “enemies of the state,” more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.
There are some who do take Veganism and Environmentalism on faith and treat it as a religion. No question.
That is my point.
But not ALL do, and to blanket-label all environmentalists and vegans as religious nuts is not a fair characterization
I have explicitly and in so many words said exactly that (I can't speak for AM). And I'd like to add: to label all abortion or gay-marriage opponents religious nuts is not fair.
The resistance to "religion in politics" is probably more accurately described as resistance to basing the law on the Christian Bible.
Oops, a little late for that. Just go read the laws in Exodus; they look a hell of a lot like the common law, and probably are the basis for the common law. But OK, I get the point.
Religion should be a personal thing, not something you try to enforce on others with the power of the state.
No disagreement here, if by enforce you mean "require/forbid religious observance." But if 51% of the population wants the law to forbid or require something what does it matter what the motivations of that 51% are? Only the content of the law--good idea or not?--matters.
Fats Durston touches on something--When Goldberg and his ilk try to claim that Nazi's were leftists, they inevitable try to make the Nazi's more like leftists, and wind up acting as Holocaust Deniers.
Fats -
Gay men in Germany probably had a slightly different take than you.
I acknowledged that there were very harsh punishments of homosexuals. Did you miss that? The question seemed to be what the presence of homosexuals within the Nazi ranks might signify, given the fact that the Nazis treated gays so harshly.
Ryan W.-
Probably the same thing as the Republican party?
Who the hell cares whether you like inflammatory titles? You seem proud of your refusal to actually crack open the book and engage its arguments substantively, and your pompous posts on the cover of the book reveal little knowledge of history.
If you have nothing to say, Megan, don't say it. Your emotions are not interesting.
"NO. COVER. EVER. Gets printed without the author's explicit approval. NONE."
Hmm I've corresponded with enough authors to know this is probably not true. Read a bit about what Ursula K. Le Guin had to say about some book covers for one example. Possibly what you mean is "In my experience NO, COVER, EVER" etc as it's unlikely you've dealt with every publishing firm in the US. (That said if he displays the cover on his blog he probably approves)
As for Nazis and Christianity some of them were highly Christian while others weren't. As the Catholic Church is the biggest Christian Church it's mentioned most, but the main pro-Nazi Christian group was a mostly Protestant association called the "German Christians."
In addition many people quote the statement about "positive Christianity" without understanding that Hitler meant something specific. For Nazis "Positive Christianity" often meant a revising of Christianity to emphasize Christ as a "man of action" who opposed "the Jews." In its full form "Positive Christianity" diverged radically from Christianity as normally understood by denigrating or removing the entire Old Testament. So if Nazism was Christian it was largely a highly heterodox Nazi-form of Christianity which existed nowhere else.
However the fact of the matter is Hitler grew disinterested in this experiment by 1937. Hanns Kerrl, Nazi committed to a synthesis between Christianity and Nazism, died as a marginalized man in 1941. Alfred Rosenberg and Martin Bormann were generally opposed to Christianity. Goebbels abandoned his youthful Catholicism and may have referred to the faith as "The Black International." (A term used by some conspiratorial minded anti-Catholics) Many of the leading Nazis had a strong, if disputed in meaning, interest in paganism and the occult. Nazism, and Fascism too, had a religious or quasi-religious orientation which included elements from Christianity as would be expected from European societies. To see them as "Christian regimes" in even the way Franco's was is basically misguided.
My, my. The mice will play while the cat's away. A brief recap, starting with Rob Lyman:
And here's me, demanding where's the beef:
And here is Rob's 'evidence' (italics my quote, the rest his 'analysis'):
What. An. Idiot. Or a dishonest little weasel, take your pick, there is no third alternative. Let's look at what I said again:
The reader who is not nodding off into a heroin coma will notice that what was quoted says _nothing_ about whether I think "Rob is wrong because Rob is wrong." No, it says that a) what Rob says he 'accepts' has nothing to do with what is actually true or not, and b) I could care less what he says he 'accepts'. Whether or not he 'accepts' that the world is flat will not make one speck of difference to the truthfulness of the claim; whether or not he 'accepts' that the world is flat, well, as I said, I could care less. And I put 'accepts' in tics for a reason: what this joker says and what he actually believes is, I think it is apparent to all, highly contingent upon the conversation he's having.
Now, let's look at the next bit:
The twit himself says that this quote is the sum total of his 'evidence'.
Iow, when directly challenged, put up or shut up, he muffs up.
And yes Rob, you are _definitely_ a lightweight.
This is probably where I'm going to bow out, because we see these nut-jobs doing the same-old same-old "if you can't make me say I'm wrong I win " snuffle. But I will note in passing that this thread has served one very useful purpose, to wit, it has smoked out those negligible personas, those of the orange-stained underpants, who say they are 'reasoned conservatives' or 'principled conservatives' or 'serious conservatives' or who 'truly want to have a dialogue in good faith'.
No, you don't. That's Rob Lyman, rwe and a few others who've previously insisted that they were 'serious'.
No, being serious would actually mean displaying a bit of strategic acumen and saying that Goldberg is just flat-out wrong, that the only question is whether he is a cynic or just plain incapable of stringing an intelligible argument together. Being strategic would also mean noting that yes, there are definitely elements on the right that are fascist, and that this is inarguably more salient when talking about the right than the left, but that no, as a 'serious' conservative, one disavows them, disapproves of them, and wish they would creep silently away.
But Rob, rwe et al are not even minimally strategic; apparently they just cannot resist getting in a few good shots (well, they think they're good, instead of being simply embarrassing), no matter how unserious it makes them look. Apparently, we're just suppose to ignore this when another thread starts up and they appear to make a contribution (some would call what they are making a deposit.)
No. Uh-uh. If I see these people on another thread, I will quite happily explain what noisome little excrescences they have made of themselves here, and why I don't bother responding to them. What I've done to people like Mixner, for example, for similarly egregious offenses of logic and reading comprehension, bad faith and just plain bad taste.
Listening to Gilbert's History of the 20th Century, Vol II -- I'm in '37-'38. (Recommended)
He quotes journalists, diplomats, travelers, business people who witnessed Hitler lead Germany as it engulfed Central Europe and Japan's military, China.
Suddenly you realize how "empowered" and exhilerated ordinary people felt as dominating Nazis and triumphal soldier. Hitler mezmerized as an orator, but people, as mobs, as soldiers, as brownshirts, as casually cruel citizens firing despised minorities from jobs etc, were deeply mobilized as the instruments of fascistic power. We sometimes, because from it is our good fortune to witness this brutality at a distance, assume that most contemporaries were like us witnesses of a spectical they found enthralling. Fascism, it might be said, was the first reality show and that was the source of much of its ability to ensnare.
So, pardon my lack of strategic accumen, but why do you think I'm wrong? I'm perfectly willing to listen to words of one syllable if you don't think I can handle big ones, but I still don't know what it is about my short look at your list (way up above) is wrong.
Interesting that this topic came up.
After hearing about a famous leftist intellectual for years from my lefty friends, I finally got around to viewing a documentary about him and his work to see for myself what he was about. After watching the documentary, in which he (correctly) noted the role the media plays in distorting our views of the world to favor powerful interests, and in which he angrily denounced cases of genocide in which the U.S. government was complicit, I formed a newly favorable opinion of him. Then I looked up his email address, and had an email conversation with him.
Since he had described himself as a "left-libertarian", and considering what I had seen in the documentary, I thought that we might hold similar views, but emphasizing different points. After all, it is quite possible for a libertarian to want to live in a voluntarily socialist community with friends or family, without wishing to impose their preferences on anyone else.
How wrong I was.
As long as I agreed with him, he was quite charming - but as soon as I disagreed on any point, even though I tried to be a gentleman about it, he turned quite belligerent. Finally, because I gave the case that each individual should have the right to choose whatever medical treatment they thought best, and that the FDA should not interfere with the patient's choice, he accused me of condoning mass murder. When I pointed out the many contributions made by the private sector, he responded that only government could perform certain tasks for the betterment of society, and - I shit you not - he gave the genocide of the American Indians as one positive example of government benevolence. With the help of other indicators, I could only come to the conclusion that this man is, above all else, a fascist. He believes in democracy, to be sure - he believes that every person is capable and has a right to tell his neighbor what to do, but is incapable and has no right to make decisions about their own life. The very idea of individual rights is anathema to him.
When I have had online conversations with someone so ignorant or deranged in the past, I presumed they were either a precociously ignorant 13 year old with delusions of grandeur, or insane. The fact that this man is broadly acknowledged as a leading liberal intellectual - even "the" leading liberal intellectual - is frightening.
In fairness, he's getting on in years, and may be senile.
Why am I not saying his name? No one would believe me anyway.
Rob, why should I even bother to talk to you after your nasty little accusation followed by your complete failure to follow it up with, you know, actual evidence?
If you want me to talk to you, you a) admit you were wrong, badly wrong, didn't have a leg to stand on, and b) you will sweetly apologize. Oh, and c) you will explain exactly why you wrote what you did.
If you can't do that, I feel under no obligation to have any sort of conversation with you. But I will mention your sad little sally quite frequently should I ever encounter you again, you may be sure of that.
SoV, the problem is that I don't see me "accusing" you of anything. I offered my reasons for disagreeing with you. In a reply, you failed to explain why you thought I was wrong, but made it clear (so I thought, anyway, feel free to correct me) that you did think I was wrong. I consider that sort of response unproductive--what's the point of going back and forth with "Is not!" "Is too!"--so I said so, sarcastically.
There is no accusation of any kind, much less a nasty one. There is only the observation/i>--irrefutable, so far as I can tell, but feel free to offer evidence of your own--that you refuse to substantively engage what I wrote (far) above. In the mean time, rickm, nonsuch, and liberalrob have all managed to disagree with me and give reasons for disagreeing.
And might I add that your bizarre insistence on an apology when it is you who have been shoveling insults is--shall we say--a touch fascistic. Fortunately, you're not a liberal, so it doesn't contradict your thesis. :)
No Rob, you wrote that I said you're wrong because you're wrong. I most certainly did not, and when challenged to provide proof of your accusation, your sole evidence of this was a quote where I said a)what you do or do not 'accept' does not affect the truth one iota and b)I could care less what you 'accept'.
That in no way has anything to do with your accusation, but it has quite a lot to do with how you conduct yourself. And where I come from, part of personal responsibility is admitting you're wrong when you are in fact, wrong. It's also part of being taken seriously.
But you don't want to admit you're wrong when clearly you are. Worse, you stamp your widdle feet, say you're a big boy, and you want to be treated like an adult.
It's not going to happen, at least not by the likes of me.
Not until you grow up and accept some goddamn responsibility instead of just tugging on everyone's sleeve and yowling that's what you believe in - and that other's don't. That's contemptible.
I trust that I have made myself _quite_ clear, and this has less to do with politics and a lot more with your personal behavior.
"you stamp your widdle feet"
Heard that one before. It means you disagree with SOV
"this has less to do with politics and a lot more with your personal behavior"
Pot-->kettle.
As a general rule, when anyone starts rolling out "little man" and "stained underpants" condescension it's a tacit acknowledgment that the arguer has become unmoored from his logical or factual grounding. When the insults flow like water simultaneously with demands of an apology for same, the tacit becomes comically explicit.
Examples here and here and all around them.
Rob, I guess I'm saying this is probably a waste of time.
Rob, I guess I'm saying this is probably a waste of time.
Probably, but so what?
SoV, I have become confused about what you regard as the "nasty little accusation." I had thought it was "I'm wrong because I'm wrong," but now I'm not so sure. If you could quote it, perhaps with "Accusation:" in front of it, I might be able to clarify my intent.
you wrote that I said you're wrong because you're wrong. I most certainly did not, and when challenged to provide proof of your accusation, your sole evidence of this was a quote where I said a)what you do or do not 'accept' does not affect the truth one iota and b)I could care less what you 'accept'.
OK. So the inference I drew from your statement--which I do concede was not contained in their literal meaning--was that you think I'm wrong. That is not, I think, an unreasonable conclusion, and you have given me no reason to doubt it. Your failure to provide a substantive reason behind that belief, in the very space where such reasons might be expected, was what I was mocking/chiding/criticizing when I wrote "I'm wrong because I'm wrong." The intent behind saying that was not to "accuse" you of anything, but to highlight the vacuous nature of your reply, which if taken 100% literally, was an irrelevant truism combined with an insult.
I do not think it unreasonable to characterize irrelevant truisms and insults as assertions of the wrongness of your interlocutor. Nor do I think it at all sensible to characterize reasonable inferences--or even unreasonable ones--as "nasty accusations" unless the inference drawn is truly invidious.
Alan -
My sister once wrote to me "I don't believe individuals have rights, I believe communities have rights".
I said "I love you very much but we aren't going to agree about much."
Fascism, it would seem to me, takes the argument one step further - only the state and its agenst have rights and power. That system's health and supremacy are paramount.
Communist states and monarchies can both adopt this point of view. The whole left-right thing is nonsense. The only belief that runs in direct contradiction is one that advocates a state with severely restricted power and protection of individual rights.
It may sound self-serving when Megan (or I) say it but fascism certainly seems more like the opposite of libertarianism than of liberalism or conservatism. On the political compass its more of a North-South distinction, whereas Goldberg and those who inspired him are trying to push it East or West.
I guess everyone wants to be the opposite of fascist. But since any system that can reasonably be called fascist involves, at its root, a powerful state assuming supremacy over individual rights, I think we small-state advocates look pretty good.
Generally the counter-argument is that corporations can assume this power and do what the fascist state would otherwise do. I disagree, but I'll save it for later.
you wrote that I said you're wrong because you're wrong.
It occurred to me that if we're going to play psychotic grammar games and deny the right of readers to draw reasonable inferences outside of the literal meaning of our sentences, that this characterization of what I said is incorrect.
I wrote:
The reader who has not slipped into a drug coma will note that I mention SoV nowhere in this brief post; in fact, the literal meaning of my sentences in 1) an acknowledgment of error, and 2) a comment on the useful and informative nature of an exchange between unnamed parties.
So, while the context and implication of my statement clearly does make it a sarcastic criticism of SoV's still-unexplained failure to respond to me substantively, context and implication are apparently forbidden as sources of meaning, and indeed using them constitutes making nasty accusations without evidence.
OK. Just so long as I know what the rules are.
A few points:
First, Goldberg seems to conflate socialism and liberalism. They have similarities, but are not the same thing. Second, socialism also has characteristics in common with conservatism, such as an "organic" view of society, and a much less strict view of civil liberties than liberals. Third, the welfare state was under Bismarck, who founded the second reich. Fourth, as I understand it, fascists were primarily reactionaries. They just didn't want to slow change, or stop it. They wanted to change things back, with some adjustments of course. The looked back on the old aristocratic era with nostalgia. From what I've read, the officers of the nazi's military was heavily weighted to aristocracy.
The ultimate aristocrats, the Royalists/Monarchists, were an entirely separate political faction in Italy, often in direct opposition to the Fascists.
Fascists may have appealed to nostalgia in race or other personal areas, but the idea of fascists=reactionaries requires support. One thing Goldberg does a good job of is showing the commonality in campaign vocabulary and ideas between leftist movements, particularly those calling themselves 'progressive' and the Fascists.
Furthermore, 'reactionaries' were Hitler's sworn enemies. By his own word.
So far Goldberg''s book is half-right for me. I applaud calling BS on the equation of fascism/nazism with conservatism or simply with those of us who think corporations are not the source of all evil. Those movements simply have nothing to do with current conservatism or free-market thinking, both of which cherish classically liberal values.
I don't think there's a huge need to try to pin those things on the modern left, and Goldberg's book backs off that part several times in the text, although it's implied in the title and cover art. That part is about selling books.