- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I haven't read the book so this isn't fair, however based on the interview I've kind of got to believe this is one of those pained treatises where the author has spent too much time anylizing a specific subject. I've done it myself - trying to come up with arguments to something you believe so much so that you start pulling garbage out of your backside. Stuff that has a certain logic, but when looked at from outside is really just crap. With enough effort, anything can be twisted into winning an argument, and I have no doubt that he can provide sufficient rhetoric to show "liberalism = fascism". However what matters is not the ability to win arguments but rather the truth. That appears to be well clouded here.
Frankly I'm inclined to believe that it's going to create a big discussion about nothing. It isn't going to change a damn thing, prevent Fascism, or do anything more than get people ripped over something that has no effect on real life. Whether (us) liberals are heir apparent to Nazi-ism or not isn't going to change diddly on what we do or don't do. We aren't Nazis and all the liberals I know when presented with Fascism, regardless of source, will fight just as strongly as any conservatives.
As a final note, I find it a little dumb to approve (he had the choice) a cover that can do nothing but pre-suppose those who might see it, and then turn around and criticize those who do exactly what it intended to do. In the end, the term, "Don't judge a book by it's cover," isn't really intended for books that intentionally manipulate via their covers, but rather those that accidentally do. If he doesn't put a serious cover, he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
I suppose based on his comments us liberals are just supposed to go "Ha, ha" when it implies we're akin to Nazis.
Ha, ha. Very funny.
