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?!