On Liberal Fascism...

I've been meaning to post these two emails for a while. They represent the begining of an email conversation with Jonah Goldberg on his book Liberal Fascism and the end.

1/16/2008
Hello Jonah,
I was at your talk last night at Borders. I asked the last question about whether the way you discuss fascism drains it of its meaning and its specific interwar context. I wasn't really satisfied with your answer (though some of it was helpful), but I realize that a forum like that isn't really the place to hash these sorts of issues, so I don't hold it against you. Since you have been responding to criticism on your blog, I wonder if you would respond to a few questions.

I really do get the impression (from reading half your book and your talk) that you see the political spectrum running from classical liberalism to fascism. (And everything in between as some flavor of fascism, be it smiley fascism or not). Even if you can show that some people the in 60s etc. worshipped violence and had disdain for bourgeois values, to my mind they are extreme, and fine, talk about similarities with fascism. But it seems to me you need to do it with each case, because I don't see it as helpful to label someone like, say, Paul Krugman as a fascist. He is not fascinated with violence, does not denounce bourgeois values or any such thing, he basically thinks there should be a relatively larger welfare state (as do I) and other than that he accepts elections, believes in the rule of law, etc. I just wonder why renaming statism or collectivism or pro-welfare state ideas "fascism" is helpful? Even if you can show affinity in certain radicals in the 60s (or with the Wilson administration), renaming all of this fascism takes it out of its context and is bound to raise hackles unnecessarily--I think this relates to the criticism you have received in the blogosphere. For example, under your definitions, how do I characterize John Stewart Mill? I am a liberal and have read a good chunk of his Principles of Political Economy. I quite agree with a lot of it. But even though he is a sturdy member the Anglo tradition and by most definitions is something of liberal (just one who is willing to use the state against inequality, for example), according to your scale, as far as I can see, he is a fascist--or maybe a utilitarian fascist?

In response to my question at the talk you mentioned "classical fascism," which you also mention in the book. I still think this is problematic. If we look at the Weimar Republic, according to your way of looking at things, you had fascist communists and (classical?) fascist Nazis trying to undermine the fundamentally fascist Weimar Republic and the fascist Social Democratic Party. I hope you see why this is unhelpful.

I realize your book is an attempt to place fascism on the left. It seems a reasonable-ish argument to make for what you call "classical fascism" (i.e. fascism of the interwar era), because fascism was such a hodgepodge of ideas and socialism and anti-capitalism were without a doubt part of that mix. (Even though there I do think you wriggle out of really thinking hard about why the ideas of Action Francaise, for example, or Franco (who, I seem to recall wasn't exactly vilified by National Review) aren't at some level also "conservative"--if not Adam Smith classical liberals, but they certainly had ways of looking at an idealized traditional past invoking a Catholic ideal.) I think your argument would be stronger, however, if you weren't tempted to bring that to the present. Now, I know you don't like people like Naomi Klein calling conservatives fascist--well, neither do I--but that doesn't really excuse calling people like me or even "compassionate conservatives" some flavor of fascist. Why not just stick with libertarian definitions, if that is how you want to look at it? That is why I think you have drained fascism of useful meaning.
Best,

10/11/2008
Dear Jonah,

In your blogpost response to Michael Moynihan's review of your book you admit that he makes some good points, but dismiss at least one criticism, and, explicitly some others (though clearly, you are leaving that up to interpretation) by saying: "There are a few other spots where Michael seems to want be so even-handed he offers strawmanish criticisms of my book."

I hope you do not include this part as "strawmannish:"

"While Hillary Clinton’s 1993 attempt at a government takeover of health care was disastrous and destined to failure, why view it as a failed bit of fascism rather than a failed attempt at generically Scandinavian socialism? And if the Clinton health care plan was socialist, does that mean that it was also fascist because, after all, both Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were economically left-wing? Is statism automatically fascism?

It is here that Goldberg’s book ultimately fails to convince. A jaunt through modern Sweden, for instance, would find an economy hobbled by state intervention and government agencies that talk endlessly about the health of the community—the folkhem, a term redolent of the Nazi concept of volksgemeinschaft. But if we then broaden the meaning of fascism to include social democratic Sweden, one wonders what country in Europe wouldn’t qualify. In his attempt to reappropriate the insult from the left, Goldberg has further diluted a term that was already almost unrecognizable."

This has been my critique as well, which I wrote to you long ago, and you have never, in any form--either from me or your reviewers such as Moynihan--responded to. I waited to judge your book until I had read it; I haven't dismissed it all; but I do believe with Moynihan, it "ultimately fails to convince." You wanted to write something both popular and academically defensible, but I am afraid you have failed. It doesn't surprise me that many (conservative) people across the country are excited to learn that liberals are the real fascists. But, as Moynihan says, and I say, by making everything into fascism you have explained nothing. If modern Germany, Britain and Sweden are fascist; if the Democratic Party is fascist; if "compassionate Conservatives" are fascist; then, honestly, what good is your book anyway? Also, your insistence that these ideas are imported is pretty silly. The simple fact of the matter is that some form of social democracy can be explained and exists within the Anglo-American liberal tradition: I am thinking of J.S. Mill (see especially his book on Political Economy) and J.M. Keynes--the latter of whom you smear in your book by the way: try actually reading the (Tory!) Lord Skidelsky's wonderful biography of Keynes where he addresses your claims regarding eugenics head-on (before they even existed).

Congratulations then on making some money and influencing public dialogue; you have duly revenged yourself for all those times some ignorant leftist called you a fascist. Bravo.

Best,

The Jews? Big Fiat Money? Tango and Cash?

During the 2008 primary season, I argued on numerous blogs with gold bugs--drawn to any blog post that mentioned gold, the Fed, or monetary policy like Paulites to tin-foil hats--who insisted that we naysayers would all eat our hats when Ron Paul (say, isn't he a doctor or something?) emerged victorious in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. (He raised more money in a single day than anyone, ever! People who believe the 16th amendment was never ratified are the new silent majority!)

I've given the Paulites over a year to ponder this, and like all good conspiracy theorists--beware the Amero!--I'm sure they've identified the nefarious forces that stopped destiny's march to force a crown of Rothbard upon our heads.

I know you guys have mastered Google Alerts and thus found your way here, so...spill the beans! Who was it?!

Brooks in a nut shell

Let’s summarize David Brook’s insightful column.

1) Republicans over emphasize individualism and under emphasize community

2) Most people recognize that communities are an important part of their quality of life.

3) Republican pathological devotion to hyper-individualism puts them out of touch with the vast majority of the country (except rural Wyoming)

4) There are two basic visions of how to build community: top down planning, which is the “socialist” or “liberal” model and bottom up empowerment, which incidentally is what Democrats have pushed for the last 18 years.

In conclusion, if Republican’s want to win they need to become more like modern Democrats.

Economic illiterates waste the nation's time, stalling recovery

Steven Pearlstein suggests that as part of the stimulus package the government should subsidize "personal economic trainers" for legislators in Washington. I agree completely--especially for the Republicans, who are taking advice from Joe the Plumber, and "moderate" Senators of both parties who supported these changes to the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill:

Under the new plan, tax credits of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples would begin to phase out at lower income levels than first proposed, saving the government $2 billion.

The biggest cut, roughly $40 billion in aid to states, was likely to spur a fierce fight in negotiations with the House over the final bill. Many states, hit hard by the recession, face wrenching cuts in services and layoffs of public employees as they struggle to comply with laws requiring them to balance their budgets...

In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction; $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient; $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start; and $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas.

... Ms. Collins said she believed the changes had significantly improved the measure. Mr. Specter said that while he still had reservations, he had come to accept Mr. Obama’s push to enact the economic plan by mid-February. “I believe we do have to act,” Mr. Specter said, “and under the circumstances this is the best we can do.”

An economic advisor might have explained to Sens. Collins and Specter that 1. during a recession poorer people are more likely to spend and less likely to save checks from the government and are therefore more stimulative; 2. saving the jobs of state employees is quick and easy and stimulative; 3. school construction is stimulative and an investment in the future and refurbishing federal buildings and making them more energy efficient is stimulative and saves money over the longterm. These yahoos wasted our time for these "improvements?!"

News from the Commanding Heights...

From today's Financial Times:

The US financial sector’s new political masters began exerting their influence on Tuesday as Citigroup was forced to scrap the purchase of a $50m executive jet that was seen as a misuse of money at a time when the bank is reliant on public support.

Only a day earlier, Citi had insisted it would complete the acquisition of the aircraft. But it backed down after officials acting for Tim Geithner, the new Treasury secretary, expressed strong opposition to the move.

Mr Geithner’s action came as he raced against time to change public perceptions of the government’s bank rescue effort – the troubled asset relief programme inherited from the Bush administration....Some Washington officials say they are amazed bythe financial sector’s tin ear to public sentiment at a time when it is heavily reliant on government aid.

One has to love the first sentence. Now, let's hope next on the agenda is telling them to lend damn it! And stop giving bonuses to executives with public money.

North Dakota: a nest of corruption

According to USA Today it is the most corrupt state in the union per-capita. Suddenly it becomes clear how our fellow blogger landed a position at UND...

Reading the WSJ

We Financial Times readers don't often get stories like this. Our mornings are more likely filled with ruminations about the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, or the world economy. The Wall Street Journal does that too (though not as well I would contend; and of course its reactionary op-ed page pales next to the brilliant pink (salmon?) of the FT), but one thing it does do well is cover business. I read that story on a plane the other day, and it struck me that I wasn't sure how I as a WSJ reader (for the day) was intended to respond to this:

"Daniel A. Gunther has good reason to keep his checkout line moving at the Meijer Inc. store north of Detroit. A clock starts ticking the instant he scans a customer's first item, and it doesn't shut off until his register spits out a receipt.

To assess his efficiency, the store's computer takes into account everything from the kinds of merchandise he's bagging to how his customers are paying. Each week, he gets scored. If he falls below 95% of the baseline score too many times, the 185-store megastore chain, based in Walker, Mich., is likely to bounce him to a lower-paying job, or fire him...

Interviews with cashiers at 16 Meijer stores suggest that its system has spurred many to hurry up -- and has dialed up stress levels along the way. Mr. Gunther, who is 22 years old, says he recently told a longtime customer that he couldn't chat with her anymore during checkout because he was being timed. "I was told to get people in and out," he says. Other cashiers say they avoid eye contact with shoppers and generally hurry along older or infirm customers who might take longer to unload carts and count money....

By calculating a standard time for each task, a retailer can more closely monitor worker performance and figure out how and where to reduce labor, the single biggest controllable expense in retail. OWO says its methods can often cut labor costs by 5% to 15%.

The approach is rooted in the time-motion theories of Frederick Taylor from the early 20th century, which were used to break down tasks into units to determine the maximum work a person could do. Harold B. Maynard, the company's founder, began his career in 1924 as a time-study engineer at Westinghouse, then formed his own company. For 70 years, that company worked primarily for manufacturers.
In 2000, after demand from manufacturing industries declined, the company shifted into retail. These days, about 80% of its $20 million in annual revenue comes from retail.

"As manufacturing gets shipped overseas, many people thought that would be the end of engineered standards," says John Lund, a professor of industrial engineering at an extension program for workers at the University of Wisconsin. "In fact, we are not seeing that at all. We are seeing a renaissance of engineered standards in the retail industry."

My initial reaction was to think of all sorts of 19th and 20th century touchstones. I thought of Max Weber's iron cage and Marx the younger (alienation) and elder ("Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him." and "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.")



I can only assume that many a New York Times reader would have the same impression as I did were the article in the Times. But I can only surmise that a WSJ reader is intended to get a little thrill of discovery in a new more efficient system--even if the darker (and absurd: checkers explain how they cheat to make their times) sides are exposed within the text itself. There are practical reactions as well: Consider the CEO in a recent New Yorker profile of uber-optimist Thomas Friedman who admitted that when he read The World is Flat he started writing down names of firms in the outsourcing busines--since he figured he ought to be outsourcing too. By way of inference, I kind of assume that many WSJ readers will do the same with such an article. They figure that they ought to get their firms a state-of-the-art timing system to reduce costs (cost of labor in this case) in the service industry (or invest in firms that do etc.). And the thing is, they are right. If it makes the firms more "productive" without sacrificing too much in customer service (measured by higher profits after the "improvement" relative to what they would be without the system), then they should, and will. That is how the capitalist system works, after all: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Of course that will suck for both the customers and employees, but our complaints are insignificant in the face of that sort of logic.)