From reading the interview, it seems that 90% of Goldberg's argument comes down to a framing issue. He claims that liberals are the political offspring of fascists, but adds the caveat that fascism isn't necessarily evil, it's just been cast that way in the public mind. The way I read this is that he's hoping people skip over the part about fascism not being necessarily evil and just read the part where liberalism=fascism. His whole argument is essentially that fascism is just another name for socialism.

Koppelman is 100% right to call Goldberg out on the role of ultra-nationalism in fascism. I would argue that the nationalist, militarist ideology is far more important than the economic ideology when it comes to defining fascism, and the closest thing in recent American politics would be the various versions of the statement "If you're not with us, you're against us."

I especially love the part where Koppelman asks for a definition of fascism. Goldberg's reply that it is a political religion, "to seek unity in all things, to believe that we need to all work together to go past any of our disagreements and that the state needs to be, almost simply as a pragmatic matter, the pace-setter, the enforcer of this cult of unity." The cultural values of conservatives/Republicans, using a broad definition, are much more likely to render a state that is the enforcer of a cult of unity. No gay rights (preferably no gays), no appreciation of diversity, no more brown-skinned immigrants, no more protests/protesters. I've always understood fascism much more as a political ideology based on cultural unity subjugated to the interests of the state, and the demonization of all others.

I particularly like question about the war on drugs, where Goldberg claims Nixon would be a liberal Democrat and completely skips over the fact that Reagan was responsible for the first exponential increases in the "war on drugs." If I'm understanding Goldberg's position on...

This is becoming way too redundant. I agree with the other poster who wrote that this belongs on the Coulter garbage heap. If anything, it's a shame that a poorly argued, poorly researched, and deceptive book like this one has attracted this much attention and is considered legitimate in the realm of historical/political debate.

Salon has published an exceptional interview, and once again it's the combination of intimate familiarity with an underlying adversarial dynamic between the interviewer and the subject that focuses the discussion. (The last one I read that was this good was last year's interview of Katie Roiphe by Rebecca Traister.)

Alex Koppelman neatly demonstrates his better (or perhaps simply more honest) grasp of the history and politics of fascism, and Jonah Goldberg is left twisting around trying to defend the shoddy scholarship of his ludicrous premise.

That his scholarship is shoddy and quite possibly dishonest is evident practically off the bat, when he complains about how Mussolini was unfairly (or at least arbitrarily) called a fascist. Mussolini invented the term fascisti to describe himself and his followers! He is the canonical fascist. To assert that the term is somehow incorrectly applied to him is a klaxon that indicates that we're going to descend to depths indeed in the rest of the interview.

While totalitarian impulses are certainly as widespread in the American left as anywhere else, the idea that these are fascist impulses is an appalling torment of the term. Fascism is not that hard of a term to define, as Koppelman slyly demonstrates — it's the likes of Goldberg (and all of his intellectual cousins that seek to weaken and dilute the term for their own ends) who are kicking up all the uncertainty and doubt.

And with good reason in this day and age — in classic Rovian "attack them where you're weakest" style, stalwarts of the most statist, corporatist, militarist, nationalist, theocratic political movement in American history are desperate to call anyone else they can think of a fascist.

And I hope that Salon will have the likes of Koppelman around whenever they do.

Goldberg's entire book is one massive act of conservative projection. We've seen Karl Rove's mastery of this technique, most recently when he accused the Democrats of dragging the Republicans to war in Iraq. This is just the same kind of mental illness as acted out by Jonah Goldberg, useless cheeto gobbler.

I can't hear you lalalalalalalala

Actually, I think Jonah Goldberg makes some very thoughtful observations. Words like "facism, socialism and totalitarian" have definitions that evolve over time. They have different meanings during different periods of world history. Remember, the NAZI party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Yes, socialist, like much of Europe today. But it's hardly the same thing.

This man cannot possibly have written a book of scholarly worth.

He describes it as "revisionist history," and as a student of history I can tell you that among learned history scholars that is never intended as anything but an insult. It's unsubtle scholarly code for "sensationalist, money-grabbing crap."

The idea about history is that you don't revise it... you revise the way you look at it. That Mr. Goldberg fails to make the distinction means he is no student of history, just another loud-mouth pundit trying to make easy cash by being the loudest and most controversial voice on this week's bookstand.

Jonah Goldberg, best known as a corporate apologist and despiser of any populist message, reconcile this quote with your drivel:

"Fascism should be more properly called corporatism because it is the merger of corporate and state power."

- Benito Mussolini

You sir are the prototype of a Mussolini Fascist.

J.G admits:

"classical fascism was masculine and violently oppressive and today's liberalism is feminine and not oppressive"

Facism is oppresive. Liberalism is not oppressive e.g. Liberalism is not Facism. J.G. contradicts himself all the time in this interview. It's another Anne Coulter book to declare liberals are "evil" by association. What a load of crock.

I've heard Goldberg more than once in various interviews on other subjects, and he is, not to put too fine a point on it, a fucking moron. Vapid. Grotesquely intellectually dishonest.

If he believes the crap he spews he's so stupid it's a wonder he knows how to tie his shoes. If he doesn't believe it, he's a contemptible, opportunistic liar.

Why do you give this guy a platform? To hoist him on his own petard? It doesn't work. People remember the name, but not the game. NPR has been having this yokel on for years now, and I write them a blistering e-mail every time they do it, because Jonah Goldberg doesn't deserve a platform anywhere, let alone on a national news show.

He's a vicious dunce, and you could do us all a favor and just IGNORE him from now on. Ok?

All he's doing is projecting a long-held right-wing agenda on his opponents. Us. To defang the accusation of fascism when it rightly redounds where it belongs. His book has the same purpose, writ small, as the Bush Administration's 7-year effort to completely undermine our mass-media. Why do you aid him in this?

I don't see you doing any interviews with Ann Coulter. And Goldberg is absolutely in her league as an utterly contemptible bullshit artist.

Gah.