Today we don't use the word "totalitarian," because the connotations have been so hardened in our minds. But we use these other words like "holistic" all the time.

The leap here, of course, is that the word holistic is the same as totalitarian. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Goldberg's analysis of Mussolini ignores the fact that when he spoke of a state that encompassed all, he also meant for only specific people, namely Italians (and specific kinds; Southern, or intermixed Italians, need not apply). Holistic may also imply the whole, and the connectedness of everything, but it does not dictate the terms of the membership.

One can think of it as the difference between evangelical groups and more open groups such as Unitarian Universalists. Both are, and can be, the pivotal juncture of one's social and religious life. But one requires you to believe in a fundamental creed of some sort, and the other doesn't care.

The Nazis were grotesque euthanizers.

And they also hated abortion, for people who they deemed SHOULD be breeding babies. Again, Goldberg's rhetoric is confused. After all, the previous paragraph he argues its "fascistic" to try and stop someone from harming himself, and then goes on to argue that euthanasia (something that can be done by someone anyways, regardless of the law, by simply putting a gun to one's head) is fascist.

"But I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, "let's go to the text" approaches where words get confused for things."

The essential bit there is "words get confused for things" ie: we actually might be having a substantial debate as opposed to making up definitions and running with it. And if we did look at peoples words, Goldberg's analysis of 68 would fall apart like the straw house in the three little pigs. The Situationist's repudiated Stalinists, as did many other far-left groups in Germany, as did most American groups (with the exception, of oddly enough, David Horowitz and his band of Stalinists in the magazine Ramparts). In fact, time and time again, it was old-line Stalinist unions that coerced and beat back the far-left elements into submission, especially in Italy.

From now on suggest that if want to invite people for interviews, we actually agree that words mean something, and that you just can't make stuff up fit your own agenda.

Identity politics is the most fascistic element of liberal ideology. And it is most damaging of all when it is used as a tool for alleged social justice. Identity politics was certainly front and center in Nazi Germany. The idea that people should be categorized into groups and treated accordingly, even if it is treated "better", should be just plain repulsive to anyone with half a brain.

As to Goldberg's arguments about unity and the state knowing better. Well I think the evidence clearly shows that people are often not smart enough to make the right choices in life. Seat-belt laws, smoking laws, and helmet laws are good examples of that. It may be a scary thought that state statisticians are in a better position to make those kind of choices, but it is the reality that we live in. Of course there are plenty of examples of state promoted health programs and safety initiatives that accomplished the opposite of what they set out to do. But in today's world the empirical evidence eventually does add up and correct things.

What kind of mind confuses the promotion of organic food and no-smoking laws with the invasion of Europe, rejection of civil liberties, massive jailing and killing of political opponents, state-mandated killing of "undesirables" from blind people to homosexuals, and the extermination of 6 million men, women and children on the basis of their religion and supposed racial inferiority? Obviously, a mind wholly unschooled in logic or proportion.

One example of Goldberg's illogic: no American, liberal or otherwise, attempted to mandate the death of Terri Schiavo, as a 1930s German Fascist might have. Republicans in Congress sought (unsuccesfully) to have the government override the wishes of a brain-dead woman's husband and doctors in deciding to take her off artifical life support after many years. The liberals, in this case, were against state-mandated decision-making, feeling that it was better that the woman's spouse decide rather than a politican who never met her. This is a long way from Hitler's euthanasia laws and death camps.

I haven't gotten to finish the article yet, but I started reading because it reminds me of the following website I came across a few months ago:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

This places four quadrants of the political being, not just socially left and right, but socially left authoritarian, socially left anarchist, and socially right authoritarian and anarchist....

Which very interestingly points out how there are both left wing and right wing fascists... where hitler is more right and though i don't believe they have mussolini pegged on this site, based on Goldberg's essay seems he would be the upper left quadrant, i.e. authoritarian and socially left.

American fascists joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in order to fight the liberal Franco regime. Franco's fellow liberals, Hitler and Mussolini, gave Franco military support against the fascists. Franco's first use of airpower against civilian populations was noteworthy for its kindness.

And then he goes on to say that Mussolini was inconsistent and applied terms differently and loosely. Golberg's brand of historical revisionism is deeply inconsisten with his use of labels. Under his definition of nazism, it would be hard for anyone to not fit under that category, atleast in some way. When a term because that general, it in reality becomes useless as a way of discerning differences.

That was an amazing and enlightening interview. Jeepers creepers.

A lot of the Republican vs. Democratic arguments have been about "labels". The term "liberal media" comes to mind, misused and abused. "Only Conservatives can bring change" is another oxymoron.

How is a book that takes a term like "fascism", well understood and used consistently for 60 years, and attempts to equate it to modern American liberalism by redefining it, not by defining what American liberalism may be, useful or helpful in anyway to those who want to understand the big ideological differences between American political parties and ideologies?

I think the book should be ignored.

Why spend energy on revising history and historic terminology?

How about defining new words for the future, rather than keep morphing words from the past to fit the needs of those that seek power?

Let us be us, without any labels.