Pinch yourself, we are actually seriously debating this idea as illustrate by book cover:

The liberalism that produced the hippies (peace, love, flowers, anti-war) and the smiley face (have a nice day) is really pretty similar to Hitler, Nazi Germany and the extermination of 6 million Jews and uncounted gypsies, homosexuals and intellectuals.

Yes, that's reasonable premise for a mass marketed book and for debate on Salon.com.

One small step for yapping pundit, one giant step toward more credibility for Insane, scarily laughable irrational thought.

When I started reading this I remembered when I first worked in Harvard psych hospitals and needed to learn to mostly ignore crazy peoples' delusional systems. I mean, really - liberal peaceniks as fascists? But since George W. Bush ushered in the era of ultra-conservatives calling us fascists, perhaps I better listen. I'm not so sure it was worth it, though Alex Koppelman was fine.

As soon get a definition of fascism from Mussolini as a definition of freedom from George W. Bush, who thinks freedom means people electing capitalists to make their government capitalistic, and so you the worker can be ordered around in all spheres by the dictatorship of capitalism. This, incidentally, is the generally-recognized definition of fascism. Because through incompetence Bush didn't succeed, he is no more than a proto-fascist.

The definition of fascism as unity is almost entirely careless. Do the followers give themselves up to unity because they hate themselves? which is fanaticism, and can be of any political, religious, or secular stripe. For certainly, a healthy person willingly experiencing unity with willing and healthy others is one of life's great meaningful experiences. And then he leaves out that fascism coerces people to be unified. How could undemocratic forcing be left out of fascism's definition?

There's something here like someone being against codependence who then says, "Oh, and by the way, I'm a drinking alcoholic." If you viscerally hate smiley faces, that's diagnostic of problems.

These national socialisms may talk about socialism taking over capitalism (which I've never heard before), but it's all capitalism and the rich and powerful taking over, comforting those who need to be told what to do (- this is socialism?), and the rest of us have our freedoms stolen.

Personal attacks aren't nice, I know, but when I read something that's wrong on many counts I wonder if the person is stupid, crazy, lying, or careless. Jonah Golberg says he'd like to talk to liberals who disagree with him. I volunteer, but he needs to be ready to spend as long as it takes.

Best,

(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, could someone please tell me why this fool known as Goldberg deserves a platform? Here or anywhere? Isn't it about time that people of his ilk, spewers of hate and intolerance are held RESPONSIBLE for their words and the results of them. The next thing you know, he'll be wanting Liberals to wear some sort of identifying mark.

Salon take notice: I will not pay to read this sort of filth - not from Goldberg. Not from anyone. He does NOT represent what America stands for. IMO.

...in a pompous tone of voice. The only thing he proves is that words matter. He knows how to get attention and money through words alone. Another rich ninny in pundit's clothing.

What I learned from this interview is how the American right conflates socialism with state intervention in people's lives - a confusion that permeates the interview from page one to four. When you start out with that erroneous vocabulary, then of course fascism = socialism, since fascists want to increase state intervention. And since socialists are leftists, bingo. An instructive glance into the conservative mind. Thank you. It would never occur to Mr Goldberg that a social safety net can increase people's freedom, or that an administration that contracts out police and intelligence work to private companies, decreases that freedom.

It's not too hard to imagine what the purpose is of this illogical mess of a message from Mr. Goldberg, but his shameless disregard of facts, historical records, seminal writings of the people he purports to categorize is breathtaking and unfathomable.

Is it really that hard to define fascism? I suppose it is if you are trying to blurr the lines of its definition so that all can be targeted by this sobriquet( sorry, French word-as a patriotic (pro-war) American, I shouldn't have used it).

As Locke and Hobbes told us, in a democracy some individual rights need to be taken away so that the good of the whole and the protection of the many can be maintained. There is, in other words, a unity of purpose for the common good.

In fascism there is a unity of purpose, but it is subverted for the consolidation of power to a few who have their own hidden purpose: to maintain that power by any means. It is dependent on obedience rather than consent: ideology, religion, fear, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia are the tools to insure that obedience.

Mr. Goldberg's equating of the cultural opinions of citizens of a democracy with the policies of a autocratic political elite are just another red herring from the right and deserve to be dismissed. His motivation and position within a propaganda community, on the other hand, deserve much scrutiny.

Americans seem to be slowly realizing that torture, the illegal invasion and occupation of other countries, the establishment of a perpetual war with the rest of the world and the smashing of the rule of law at home are really not something they want. They also seem to be realizing that these kinds of policies are usually associated with a name. Mr. Goldberg perhaps is trying to re-educate them on its definition.

I thoroughly enjoyed this interview because it laid bare Goldberg's lack of scholastic rigor that, incidentally, appears to be one thing he thinks he does well. Sure, the book is 500-something pages long, but as the interview shows, Goldberg has to jump through serious hoops to have a simple discussion about its basic premise. He is right to point out that namecalling will never substitute for criticism, but taking him seriously only helps him sell more books. Call me cynical, but I don't feel the need for a systematic rebuttal of an argument that (loosely) relies on the words of Mussolini, who Goldberg admits would say just about anything in any situation to justify his position. I guess I just don't find it as edifying as I should.

In any case, Goldberg gives the impression that his revisionist history will provide a new framework within which we can better understand the phenomenon of fascism. I gladly admit that any such history invariably helps to illuminate forgotten or overlooked nuances of the subject matter itself. However, that is clearly not his goal. Instead, Goldberg's insistence on such an arcane point - that the "holistic" character of governments on the left and right in seeking to centralize authority and the provision of resources is what we should understand as "fascism," as exemplified by American "liberals" - confirms that he is totally removed from all that made fascism terrible. If he wanted to say that he was against the over-arching reach of the dreaded nanny state and that he just hates "liberals" himself, he could have done so in far fewer pages and far less ego stroking. Instead, he invents preposterous terms like "right-wing progressives" which provide the intellectual veneer he desperately needs to be taken seriously.

I would be interested to know whether Goldberg ever descends from flighty, self-serving comparisons with pre-WWII European governments to tackle the articulation of fascism vis-a-vis art. Anyone who has seen Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" will not soon forget the mythic and charismatic (visual) elements on which fascist ideology depends. Does "liberal" art, in Goldberg's opinion, reflect these same characteristics? Does he have the conceptual tools to undertake such an analysis? Somehow, I doubt it. He is more interested in preaching to his very small choir.