Goldberg could have saved a lot of paper and ink by simply crossing his little arms and yelling at liberals: "I know YOU are but what am I???"

And I understand that Salon wants to show that it is open-minded and all, but there's a point where somebody giving polite and thoughtful consideration to such moronic assertions is just embarrassing to read.

Which is exactly why the book was written.

This guy can get all the free advertising for his book of lies he wants on Fox or talk radio, why is a liberal website giving space to this idiot? I didn't even read the interview, I don't need to, because I understand that conservative=liar. What part of this do YOU not understand? These people already have their own exclusive forums, let's not give them ours too!

Bertram Gross wrote Friendly Fascism in 1980, which explores the evolution of the fascist idea after its supposed defeat in WWII. Although he wouldn't have termed it "liberal fascism" the way Jonah Goldberg has (no doubt in an effort to give American reactionaries a brush to tar liberals with), that's basically what it is -- fascism with a friendly face, instead of the classical fascist boot in the face. As for his line about thinking that liberals and conservatives would likely fight fascism were it to emerge, I think he's wrong; I think it's already here, and has been for a long time.

I think liberals particularly are ill-suited to combat fascism -- I think their tendency toward ecumenical thinking makes them ill-disposed to combat fascists. They're too busy trying to accommodate and manage fascists, and only too late realize that they've been played and outmaneuvered.

Conservatives aren't very motivated to battle fascists, because it meets what they see as pressing social needs -- protecting business from too much democracy, smashing labor unions, disempowering intellectuals and teachers, crushing effete bourgeois liberalism (and its corrupting effects on natural society), ending civil and human rights in the interests of state power, and, of course, killing socialism.

Richard Evans' "The Coming of the Third Reich" and "The Third Reich in Power" are both useful (and frightening, in the light of the Bush Years) history books on Nazism, and how it came to be, written by an actual historian. For anybody in Bush's America, vital reading.

I can't entirely object to what Goldberg is talking about, although I think he's writing this as a bludgeon to attack liberalism in general (even as he, paradoxically, touts liberal free-market-driven societies). But isn't the Market as totalitarian as any other abstraction? Seems like any time you subordinate living people to some abstraction, be it God, State, Party, Race, Gender, Market -- you end up in a totalitarian mess, and people get hurt.

The 21st century's battlefront will be between human rights and property rights. Given the state of the world, I think property rights are winning -- torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, permanent war -- these things are destroying human rights, and yet they're in place. But property rights are safer than ever. You can see where the priorities are. The friendly fascist will be gung-ho on property rights, and won't give a rat's ass about human rights.

Koppelman: What's the book about?

Goldberg: It's a revisionist history.

Just about says it all.

:=)

I thought this was particularly amusing: "[Mussolini] was sort of a buffoon in that sense; he was constantly changing his definitions of fascism and talking out of one side of the mouth, then out of the other side of his mouth." And this: "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." No kidding. What a ragged attempt to shift the focus from the Bush Administration's murderousness, utter immorality and impeachable illegality. It's clear even to Goldberg who the fascists among truly are. Too bad he penned this stuff instead of just admitting it.

I haven't read the book so this isn't fair, however based on the interview I've kind of got to believe this is one of those pained treatises where the author has spent too much time anylizing a specific subject. I've done it myself - trying to come up with arguments to something you believe so much so that you start pulling garbage out of your backside. Stuff that has a certain logic, but when looked at from outside is really just crap. With enough effort, anything can be twisted into winning an argument, and I have no doubt that he can provide sufficient rhetoric to show "liberalism = fascism". However what matters is not the ability to win arguments but rather the truth. That appears to be well clouded here.

Frankly I'm inclined to believe that it's going to create a big discussion about nothing. It isn't going to change a damn thing, prevent Fascism, or do anything more than get people ripped over something that has no effect on real life. Whether (us) liberals are heir apparent to Nazi-ism or not isn't going to change diddly on what we do or don't do. We aren't Nazis and all the liberals I know when presented with Fascism, regardless of source, will fight just as strongly as any conservatives.

As a final note, I find it a little dumb to approve (he had the choice) a cover that can do nothing but pre-suppose those who might see it, and then turn around and criticize those who do exactly what it intended to do. In the end, the term, "Don't judge a book by it's cover," isn't really intended for books that intentionally manipulate via their covers, but rather those that accidentally do. If he doesn't put a serious cover, he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

I suppose based on his comments us liberals are just supposed to go "Ha, ha" when it implies we're akin to Nazis.

Ha, ha. Very funny.

I'm sorry, but this is the most pathetic defense of an otherwise indefensible premise. I think entirely too much ink, bandwidth etc has been wasted on this ridiculous piece of right wing propaganda.