Not the interview per se, but the reaction. A lot of name-calling, implications about his parentage, etc. Very few substantive rebuttals or thoughtful criticisms. I thought Liberals were above the politics of personal destruction and more into the realm of honest intellectual debate.

Fascism grew from Socialism as a response to Communism – this is simple fact (NAZI means Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism). Modern Liberalism also has roots in Socialism (I would argue current Conservatism also is deeply rooted in Socialism). You can cry, scream, and hold your breath and that will not change the facts.

I would love to see the ideas argued. The name-calling is tiresome and belongs on the playground with the children who haven’t matured enough to know better.

One of the few good points raised is the tenuous link the author tries to make concerning modern Liberalism and Militarism – its kind of laughable.

Koppelman allows Goldberg to make a fool of himself without much effort. "Good question." "Yeah." "Yeah. But..." "I'll give you that..."

500 pages? What a waste of time. "The most important" revisionist history... - Wolfe. Is that the best he has?

Alex turns Goldberg on his head and he says "you're right." He believes he's using meanings for words already in the dictionary when in fact he's inventing them for his own misuse, such as with Totalitarian and Nationalism. The meanings for these words are completely out of thin air. He does a great job rationalizing their meaning, but fails.

If Alex had spent enough time pointing out errors not only in his book, but in the interview they'd be at it for quite some time until, yeah, Doughy Pantload finally said he was tired and had to go to bed.

I think Goldberg is on to something here. People have been getting these definitions wrong for years and I'm thrilled that he's finally setting the record straight. And while he's at it, I wish he would clear up a few other things. Green is actually Red and Blue is actually Violet. For centuries we've been calling colors by the wrong names! Goldberg's new way of thinking is going to open up so many opportunities to finally get things right! We can now acknowledge the truth that reptiles are really Birds and what so-called scientists have been calling birds are Reptiles. Roses are green, violets are blue, sugar is sour and a Jonah Goldberg is a total ass!

"I thought Liberals were above the politics of personal destruction and more into the realm of honest intellectual debate."

Why?

In your eagerness to zing me, you missed the points I was making, Mac...

The thing Slackie is, historically, it has been conservatives who appeased facists.

If you go to the next paragraph of what I wrote, you'll see that I point out that the conservatives entirely enable fascism to prosper, because it answers what conservatives think society "needs." Fascism is the point of the conservative/reactionary spear, the dark fulfillment of their wildest, darkest dreams ("Wouldn't it be great if you could just shoot union organizers? Yeah, that'd be swell. Let Mr. Fascist do that, so we won't have to.")

The point about liberals isn't a slam on liberals -- it's just that what is a liberal prepared to do against a fascist? Historically, it's been radicals (far further left than liberals, far less ecumenical, far more politically combative) who go after fascists far more aggressively -- anarchists, socialists, and communists were historically far more aggressive against fascists than liberals, who try to deal with fascism as if it were a coherent set of political values, and not a political pathology.

Liberalism must play rough when facing down fascism (ideally before fascism comes to dominate a country), but the danger is that playing rough will threaten liberalism itself. Given that you can't honestly reason with a fascist in debate, and that fascists only respect/fear strength and force, and are contemptuous of intellect (hence their penchant for endless war, inside and outside a country), how does a liberal combat fascism, given the fascist's tendency to fight dirty, and the liberal's desire to fight cleanly?

Liberals respect human rights, fascists don't -- and that's what it comes down to. Liberals respect a "right to be wrong" -- and that's how fascists undercut them, because the liberal will respect a fascist's right to exist, and the fascist will never extend the same consideration. To the fascist, the only good liberal is a dead liberal (the same courtesy they extend to everybody who's not with them, ultimately -- that's why they're a totalitarian movement). To really go after a fascist the way they need to be gone after, a liberal would have to sacrifice their own liberality.

The only real defense of liberalism from fascism is to build a just society that erodes the fascist's reasons for being, takes the wind out of their rhetorical sails, reveals them to be the evil crackpots that they are, because the idea of a two-fisted liberal blowing away fascists is an illiberal conceit. Build a just and noble society, a caring place that respects human rights, and you'll have a good defense against fascism.

I am not a fascist.

There are so many exceptions to his thesis it's a wonder he was able to hold it together, even with his non-logic. So, basically he takes abstract notions, broadens them beyond their specific historical and cultural situation, or outright changes their definition, and then applies them wherever he sees fit. Is the "unity" of Barack Obama really the same as a fascist equating the state with a body where each member contributes to the health of that body or it becomes sick? His thesis is all a bit silly to say the least.

If one redefines words selectively, any statement made with them has a different meaning. It also becomes useless for communication as no one agrees on the meaning of the words. This is mental masturbation at best.

The real challenge for a progressive against fascism today is spotting them, since, after the catastrophe of WWII, nobody calls themselves a fascist these days -- and, in a peculiarly American sort of way, people who are actively pursuing a fascist agenda would probably get pissed off if you called them a fascist. The word won't be used, so you have to look at their methodology, and what they're after.

That's why I mentioned the focus on human and civil rights -- that's a fascist detector, basically, because no matter what smiley-face mask a fascist is wearing, they will inevitably be hostile (in one way or another) to human rights and civil rights, because those ideas threaten their whole master/slave morality.

The friendly fascist might offer up a rhetorical justification for some abrogation of human and civil rights to try to con people into putting their necks in the noose, but an unwavering commitment on the part of liberals and progressives to respecting human and civil rights will reveal the fascist for what they really are, no matter what they call themselves. And, of course, respect for civil rights and human rights are precisely the things that make First World nations so great, what make liberal democracies worth fighting for. The only right a fascist will respect is property rights -- the "right" to be the property of another, for example -- that's how you find that property rights still existed in fascist countries, even as human and civil rights were long-since eradicated. And even the property right is a conditional right to a fascist

So, pay close attention to the status of human rights and civil rights as a barometer of a healthy, liberal society, versus a fascistic one. They're like the canaries in the coal mine, these precious rights we possess.