I think this interview more clearly illustrates the Conservative mind (as well as how shoddy Goldberg's thesis is) than it does the Liberal mind. Conservatives have been on the losing end of history for so long they have an inherent inferiority complex. Even when they're winning Conservatives still aren't satisfied.

Think back to the beginnings of the Iraq War, before the insurgency and the attempt to rebuild the country. Remember how angry the Conservatives still were? How much they hated the anti-war left. They had gained everything they could possibly have wanted and they still weren't satisfied. I believe it's because they know that any Conservative gains have historically been temporary. The Liberal agenda marches on throughout history (not without setbacks, mind you) while the Conservatives always lose in the long run.

Conservatives are now so aware of this that they are attempting to spuriously redefine past Conservative thought to distance themselves. Goldberg merely redefines certain aspects of Fascism (which is already notoriously difficult to define) by ignoring the historical context and, apparently, the words of Fascist leaders as well. It's an easy trick. You could probably make Jesus look like a Fascist as well. Didn't Jesus allow gentiles and Jews into the same religion if they wanted. Well, it's an emphasis on "unity" just like Hitler and Barack Obama!

Other than that I thought the interviewer brought up some well researched exceptions, which Goldberg inelegantly stumbled over, without getting into some sort of shouting match. Goldberg's ideas are so ill-informed they easily fall on their own without much help.

Here's the shorter version of this 496 page travesty:

Librul gays and vegetarians sowed,

The fascist path Hitler and Duce strode.

They'd rather start world wars,

Than eat steaks and buy whores;

That's fatshits history from Doughy Pantload.

Actually, I'm not convinced that this book is about fascism at all.

When you look at the first two incarnations of subtitles; "The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton", and "The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods", and then add this quote from the book; "The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism", you have much of what currently drives the Republican party; the reactive fear and vilification of anything that doesn't conform with the conditioning and traditions of their shrinking sphere of social dominance, and their subsequent claims of victimization.

So outwardly Doughy Pantload is pretending to have authored a book about fascism but what he's really done is throw a barely concealed hissy which goes like this:

We once controlled the dominant sphere,

With the power that others revere.

But since history's slipped past us,

We're the Jew to your fascist;

You librul vegetarian queer.

The only honest thing Goldberg said in this interview was; "[George] Orwell says fascism has come to mean anything not desirable as early as 1946,..." and of course he's either too dishonest or too lacking in basic self-awareness to realize that Orwell's quote completely expresses the driving force behind his entire idiotic effort.

Or I guess you could sum the whole thing up with this quote from 'Family Guy'; "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."

That's what's going on here; the big fat white guy has taken everything he finds threatening and put it under the most unpleasant umbrella he could find and then cried victim.

It's not about fascism, it's about fatshitism.

Ah here we go again. The conservative tactic of changing the truth. Say it loud and long enough and it becomes truth. This is a ridiculous book by a charlatan and Salon can kiss my ass for spending the bandwidth on this idiot whose only claim to fame is his mother got him a job. Please

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.

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.

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.