Liberal Fascism Explained
Briefing | By Amanda Busse | January 16, 2008
The side of fascism he attributes to American liberalism is not that associated with the works of George Orwell or the racism and genocide of the Holocaust. It is much less brutal, “smiley-face fascism,” as he puts it.
Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg is tired of being called a fascist. In his latest book, Liberal Fascism, he fights back against the term that those on the right are often saddled with, reminding readers that the original fascists leaned more toward the left.
Goldberg, the editor-at-large for National Review Online, argues in his book that fascism under Benito Mussolini and Nazism under Adolf Hitler came from the same intellectual source as Progressivism, the birth-mother of American liberalism. The term “liberal fascism” comes from a speech made by author H. G. Wells when he told a group of Young Liberals at Oxford that Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”
“I’m not saying today’s liberals are Hitler’s cousins,” Goldberg said at his first discussion of the book held at the Heritage Foundation. “They’re more like his grand-niece once removed.”
The author claims the point of the book is to give an accurate definition and history of fascism, a word which he asserts is commonly misused.
“Many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror,” Goldberg’s book reads. “Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the square like seditious pamphleteers.”
The side of fascism he attributes to American liberalism is not that associated with the works of George Orwell or the racism and genocide of the Holocaust. It is much less brutal, “smiley-face fascism,” as he puts it. He asserts that liberals hold political principles which are similar to those found in many fascist regimes. They have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being. Apparently, the Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods and animal rights, fought against large department stores, and promoted antismoking and public health drives.
“The Nazi war on smoking would make Michael Bloomberg’s heart jump,” Goldberg jokingly said.
According to Goldberg, fascism has a long history in American politics, spanning back to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Goldberg even finds fascist tendencies within the presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton as each tried to create an “all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing” state. His book traces more recent signs of fascist ideology in the economic ideas of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore.
So how did fascism become associated with the political right? Goldberg claims this stems from the propaganda surrounding Marxism. In the 1920s, fascist ideas were popular among the American left as many saw Italian Fascism as a “worthwhile experiment.” The German version that emerged in the 1930s had considerably less appeal.
“The American left essentially picked a different team—the Red team,” Goldberg writes, “and as such swore fealty to communist talking points about fascism.”
At the same time, Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, found it beneficial to label all ideas which he did not agree with as fascist; this included socialists who were disloyal to Moscow and, of course, the political right. Those loyal to his social doctrine also began to see communism and fascism on opposite ends when, as Goldberg asserts, both are in fact socialist in nature.
Goldberg asserts that Liberal Fascism is different from fascism of the past because today’s left are pacifists rather than militarists; their plan is to nanny, not to bully. Still, he warns that this method can be just as politically hazardous.
“Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged,” Goldberg concluded...”
Amanda Busse is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
7 Comments | Post a Comment
This book by Goldberg is quite good and he makes his points about fascism and liberalism with real intelligence. I found it quite informative.
Really, you should remove the reference to the Nazi’s in here. It’s a good article, but that bit weakens your ENTIRE argument. Haven’t you ever heard the Nazi rule? If you bring Hitler or the Nazis into an argument in comparison with your opponent, you automatically lose.
This is ridiculous. It makes sweeping generalizations about liberals, insults those who have suffered under fascist rule, and points the finger without any regard for facts.
likening not smoking in public areas to Hilter is fucking unbelievable. saying that its democrats who are trying to create an all encompassing state while not talking about how the Bush administration has done more to expand the role and power of the government since FDR and has committed the largest atrocities on freedom since Jim crow laws.
to the bitter conservative,
what you are talking about is Godwin’s law. and while it doesnt mean that they automatically lose, it certainly makes them look pretty ridiculous
Brendan,
Get over it, the modern progressive left is the heir to the fascism of the 30’s and 40’s. It is only unbelievable to you because you are ignorant of the history involved.
Bitter,
You are wrong to assert Godwin’s idiotic law. Only a progressive liberal would want an entire subject matter to be off limits for debate purposes. Imagine a debate of economic policy where any reference to data automatically ends the debate.
Of course, the American left (which is not liberal at all in the classical meaning of that word) is the party of the BIG MONEY and as such simply can not tolerate an informed electorate.
Tyrants always love ignorance.
Brendan,
So making sweeping generalizations about Conservatives is ok? Both sides understand far too well the power of word and lables. It is very effective to slap a lable, Neo-Con for example, because of the picture it conjurs. Both side also understand that the vast majority will not research let alone openly debate any issue. While this book probably posses supposition and author creative license, it does have a right to be written, read and discussed. It does not have the right to be summarily dismissed. You make the classic blunder in presenting your side by stating that comparing no smoking in public places to Hitler while the actual statement places non-smoking as a Fascist, not soley Hitler, stance.
Just my .02,
This is the great corruption of Socialism which threatens us at present. It calls itself Fascism in Italy, National Socialism (Nazi for short) in Germany, New Deal in the United States, and is clever enough to remain nameless in England; but everywhere it means the same thing: Socialist production and Unsocialist distribution. So far, out of the frying pan into the fire.
May 19 at 12:11 pm | #1 | Link
Goldberg incorrectly claims that “populism had never been known as a conservative or right phenomenon before” Mussolini