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.

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.

I cannot add more to the discussion that has not been brought up in the multitude of letters pointing out the absolutely wrong position of Mr. Goldberg, and the somewhat meek counterpoint to his written word. I will say this, that by trying, again, to redefine (or, properly, reinvent) history, Mr. Goldberg takes the route most followed by those trying to cover their own tracks, that of pointing fingers away from themselves.

The problem is not the definition, the problem is reality. By all accounts, using the real images of Mussolini and Hilter as guides, you can by their own words and actions deduce the proper form of fascism, past and present. and then take those defining elements, and apply them to modern US government, and I believe you can boil it down to one small equation:

George Bush = "The Decider" = fascism

Just what we all have been looking for. One more Ubernannied conservative manchild who has everything delivered to him with a bright bow going on and on about about the evils of the nanny culture.

I think the Karl Roves, George W's and Jonahs of the world need to find a quiet place alone together, deal with their unresolved self loathing and quit making everyone else miserable.

Let's take a look at some of the hallmarks of fascism--the idea of some sort of "pure" nationality and race that are superior to all others, the insistence that particular religions are inferior, homophobia, personal sexuality being dealt with by government authority, the rounding up, detention, humiliation and torture of "inferior" groups, the warrantless searches, spying on, arresting and ostracizing citizens for dissent and disagreeing with the government, the breakdown of civil liberties and personal privacy, the brazen corruption, secrecy and propaganda, the heavy-handed control of the media, the mandate of a forced state "morality," a dictator who "is" the law, the naked imperialism, lack of respect for international law and insatiable thirst for conquest, the irrational desire to rule the world and force-feed it an agenda or particular form of government by whatever means necessary...

Do any of these characteristics fit the description or beliefs of ANY liberal you know? Me either. But they sure do describe those of nearly every conservative I know, see and read. This is practically their manifesto, their guidebook to a perfect world. It's about as far from "liberal" as it's possible to get. All of these things are what liberals abhor. These are not left-wing characteristics. These are the calling cards of the right.

This "theory" of his is yet another example of bad people projecting their worst characteristics onto others so they don't seem as bad as they are. I mean, who really wants to be called a bigot? Yet people who routinely spout racist, homophobic, misogynist and xenophobic opinions take exception to being *called* any of those things. ("Just because I hate [insert hated group here] doesn't mean I'm a [insert corresponding form of bigotry here]... YOU'RE the [form of bigotry], because you think [members of hated group] NEED 'special' treatment...")

There's a good reason why skinheads/neo-Nazis--you know, the violent, hateful creeps who despise and attack blacks, gays, immigrants and Jews--are never mistaken for or called liberals. Because they're not. They're far-right-wing, extremist, ultra-conservative FASCISTS. Total opposite of left-wing liberals, who fight AGAINST such behavior.

Get it, Jonah? Of course you do. But deep down you don't like it, because you know you agree with the "fascist hallmarks," but you also know it makes you look bad to have so much in common with fascists. So you're trying to redefine it. If you make "fascist" mean something different, we're all fascists! Woo-hoo! But you're only making yourself look desperate and silly, like a kid insisting he fell in a puddle because he's embarrassed he wet his pants. Everyone around him knows the truth, but he still keeps repeating his sad tale, as if that will convince everyone it's really just water.

It won't, little Jonah. We all know who and what you are. And so do you. So instead of writing these desperate, convoluted screeds to water down your inherent fascism/urine-soaked pants, just make it your friend. Stand tall and announce it... you're fascist and proud! And if those weak, insipid, goody-goody liberals were smart, they'd see things your way and join you!

Honesty does a body and soul good, kid. Try it.