Letters to the Editor
-
His argument seems unessecary
I haven't read the book, but after reading this interview, it seems to me that trying to create a definition of fascism that progresses from European militaristic totalitarianism to contemporary left-wing politics creates unnecessary confusion. Are there any examples of European fascists (ex-Nazi party members, Italian or Spanish fascists)coming over to the this country to fill the ranks of the left? Maybe Mr. Goldberg discusses this in the book, but it seems like the type of thing he would mention in an interview, because it would be the easiest way to prove his point. Considering that for the longest time the right has been asserting that the American left was associated with communism during the Cold War, it seems odd that the left was also informed by the mortal enemy of communism.
The crux of his argument seems to be that liberals want to control people's lives, just like the fascists, therefore, they are fascists. There were communist governments that were contemporaries of fascist Germany, Italy, and Spain that also wanted to exert strong governmental control over people's lives; nobody has mistaken the USSR for a fascist country. Both the communists and the fascists viewed themselves as distinct and separate political movements. If you define "fascist" as "anyone who want to unify and control people", you're making the word so all-encompassing as to be meaningless.
I can understand why it would be satisfying for Mr. Goldberg to call Hilary Clinton a fascist and make it stick, but that's not a compelling reason to go mucking up the definition of fascism.
-
Libertarian vs. Authoritarian, not Right vs Left
This guy is so obviously talking about a very specific kind of "right" and "left", but I am not even sure that he knows it.
What Jonah says may make some semblance of sense if he admits that he is talking about "Libertarianism", not the "right". In some way, the opposite of Libertarianism is authoritarianism. If you accept that this is what he is talking about, and not "right" and "left" in the contemporary American political usage of the terms, then maybe his work makes sense. Otherwise, his work is complete hogwash.
I agree, though, that Alex gave an excellent interview.
-
"We're All Fascists Now"
If, as he says, Mr. Goldberg does not equate fascism with evil and does not REALLY intend to call liberals Nazis, then I'm not sure why he wrote this book. Why write a book whose purpose is to argue semantics?
The civilized world's objection to fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini, is not to their allegedly socialist economics. When most of us think of fascism, we think of genocide, torture, the brutal invasion of foreign nations, unreasonable search and seizure, abuse and killing of perceived enemies, totaltarian dictatorship, abuse and killing of minorities, and the suppression of human rights. Attempts to eliminate smoking are irrelevant in contrast to the Nazi's attempts to eliminate Jews. Neither nationalization of industry nor a preference for whole grains is a reason why "fascist" has become such an emotionally loaded insult.
I'm surprised Mr. Koppelman didn't ask Mr. Goldberg how he would classify the War on Terror, in light of his arguments that militarism is a hallmark of fascism. Isn't "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" an example of the kind of unity Mr. Goldberg labels fascist?
Given the emotional freight associated with the Nazi practices of fascism, it seems intellectually dishonest for Mr. Goldberg to claim on the one hand that liberals are fascists but also claim he is not calling liberals Nazis. I cannot imagine that Mr. Goldberg is unaware of the common understanding that fascist means Nazi.
-
Fascisi
Fascisi is an Italian term invented by Mussolini. It means "to bundle." Specifically, it means to 'bundle' corporations with government....
.... who is in bed with the corporations? Republisucks or Democrats?
Blaming others is just a tired argument. We know who the fascists in this country are... Bill Kristol, O'Really and the other sociopaths who are given a stage by the corporate media. Do they not think the people of this country can see?
Sheesh...!!
-
Get past the rhetoric
No doubt there's been enough letters written about this, but I feel compelled to add one more. Both Goldberg and Koppelman seem to be waging a battle based on the meaning of fascist rhetoric, but as some other letter-writers have pointed out, that's only half the story. The fact that Mussolini made gestures toward unity mask the fact that he was in practice greatly divisive. And isn't the backbone of fascism an ultra-nationalism? In fascism, there's so much confidence in the authority of the state that the state is excused from moral culpability. Liberalism may believe in a strong social apparatus organized by the state, but it certainly does not believe in the nation as a deeply masculine power structure that requires a potent military force. Such did fascism emerge from the extreme right wing.
-
whatswithalltheCryBabiesinthisroom??
Tawana Brawley was a fascist too -- so what ? she just didn't wear her pride on her sleeve like all the Angries in this Room.
-
Goldberg's deck: spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs wild -- plus three jokers.
I was stopped short in the interview when I read this:
"I don't say that contemporary liberalism is the direct heir of Nazism or Italian fascism. I say it's informed by it. It's like its grandniece. It's related, they're in the same family, they share a lot of genetic traits, but they're not the same thing."
This is dealing a card game in which all the cards are wild. It's hard to come up with any political tendency from anywhere on the planet where a radio signal reaches that's not "informed" by Nazism or Italian fasciam in some way or other. You can bring up any politician working today from extreme left to right and find a cluster of characteristics that you can compare to something Mussolini or Hitler or Franco talked about or did at some point or other. Ronald Reagan was big on tradition and imposing national power on air traffic controllers: Sieg Heil.
The book is a ridiculous exercise in intellectual cherry picking, with a single, stupid bottom line: to be able to point to liberals (and liberals alone) and say "fascist!" in addition to the ever-popular "socialist." I'd like to say the good news is, with this kind of enemy, liberals don't need friends.