Letters to the Editor
-
Semantics
I agree with others who have commented on the non-biased methodology of the interview. Although the interviewer clearly didn’t agree with Goldberg’s argument, his criticisms/questions were certainly justifiable and relevant. Nicely done, Salon.
Having said that, since I tend to agree more often with Goldberg politically than with Salon (and most Salon readers), I was disappointed by Goldberg’s inability to make his case in the interview. Goldberg seemed to be hung up on labels, and his responses gave the impression that his entire argument is nothing more than a redefinition of who we consider fascist and socialist and what those terms mean. I wish he had been able to more clearly outline his argument because there’s certainly a case to be made that laws prohibiting smoking in one’s own home or required seatbelt usage are examples of nanny-state fascism.
What is it they used to say about James Joyce? “There’s no sense in trying to fight the English language because you can’t win”? I think the book would have sounded more appealing and his argument more convincing if Goldberg had concentrated on the meat of the argument and less on the technical term for what Mussolini considered himself in 1937.
Just my 2 cents. Interesting interview in any case.