Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of...

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | A pretty interesting history lesson

books:

Liberal Fascism: T...

	Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Jonah Goldberg Doubleday, 2008 - 496 pages average customer review:based on 322 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Did Michael Mann Read This Book?

Michael Mann's verbose and tediously sour-grape review is continuously off mark. Goldberg correctly examines American Progressivism and its historical parallels to Social Fascism, Nazism and Statism, but with an honest admission of his right (and intent) to correct the record after being continually called a fascist for nothing more than his Conservatism. Mann charges Goldberg with hurling the f-bomb repeatedly, yet the only time the f-word is used in the book is when quoting liberals. One can reasonably conclude Mann did not read the book by his insistence throughout his review that Goldberg uses the f-bomb on anyone.

Liberal Fascism is a wonderfully researched book; thorough in its historical documentation. A true page-turner that belongs in any American historical collection.

for more information click here

A pretty interesting history lesson

The main reason that I bought this book is b/c I hear the word 'Fascist' thrown around so often that I wanted to get an in depth look into it. I knew Johan Goldberg tends toward the partisan but I heard a lot of good stuff about the book and figured it'd be worth the read.

Regardless of your political persuasion I think you'd have to admit that if nothing else, the author does a really thorough job trying to back up his points. He takes a strong academic tone with his premises and puts a lot of effort into backing up his contentions.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the book though is his explanation as to why he wrote it. There's no doubt many people throw 'Fascist' out any time they disagree with someone politically. A lot of the time it ends up being little more than petty name calling. He points out that there's no universally accepted definition of fascism. Many definitions are merely historical descriptions which render them meaningless when used in any sort of modern context. Others focus on the characteristics of fascist movements in general which affords them more relevance when used to describe current events.

I had always been of the impression that Fascism was a right-wing phenomenon and that's always what I had learned in high school and college. While reading the opening chapters, I put a lot of energy into double checking his claims b/c they were contrary to what I had always believed to be true. I definitely found a lot to be said for the contention that early progressives shared a lot of affinity for fascist principles. And I also think that his point that traditional fascists had a lot more in common with the current left than the current right.

Outside of pointing out that the word is used so commonly yet there's no remotely universal definition, the other really eye opening point was with respect to the Reds and the Browns. He contends that philosophically, they were idealogically very similar. But inner group animosity was strong and when fascists got a bad name worldwide, the Reds didn't want associated with them lest it hurt the cause. So they branded fascism as a right wing phenomenon - b/c they essentially didn't want the pr hit. I don't know that I was completely convinced of this particular argument, but he makes a decent case for it and it was not something I had considered before.

Throughout the book though, he constantly illustrates fascists in their own words, and then asks essentially "Who does this sound more like today? The people who get called fascists or the people who are doing the name calling, i.e. the right or the left"? (Other than Right wingers calling a certain group the Islamofascists, I don't see the charge of fascist coming out of right wing circles that often. [I will say though that if Fascism was definitely a leftist philosophy, I would expect the RIght to point it out more, and I don't see that too often.]). Most of the time, even though I find it a little uncomfortable, I have to admit that it does seem that the modern left seems to behave more in line with the traditional fascists than the right does. And I definitely hear many libertarians called fascists by some on the left, and I don't see anything substantive in common with modern libertarians and fascists {many libertarians are anti-war, want lower taxes, less regulation, private gun ownership, stronger property rights}. If you take the Hawks and Religious Right out of the mix, I see virtually nothing in common with the modern right and the traditional fascists.

Before I read this book , I never really looked though. I'm always cautious when I read one book and then start to completely rethink something I've believed all of my life. I will always ask myself if I'm just being swayed by some clever arguments. So I will look around and do further investigation... and keep looking until I'm comfortable one way or the other about the issue(s). So far, pretty much everything I'm finding makes me believe more and more than Goldberg is right and I've been wrong all this time. And while my mind isn't made up yet, it's definitely leaning strongly in that direction.

-----
As a side note (and I say this about both sides...), if an author's point is really weak, then why not just point out where he's wrong. Pointing out for instance that Goldberg's mother got him his job (I honestly don't know if it's true or not, I've just seen that down in the Tags) doesn't disprove any of his points, so why rebut him with such comments if his material is clearly so wrong? Branding someone a Moonbat, Wingnut or whatever will certainly convince some closed minded people to ignore what they have to say, but it's doubtful it will convince anyone but the already convinced. Reasoned and substantiated arguments would go a lot further to winning over people who are still making up their minds. But too many on both sides are too intellectually lazy to do that - name calling is so much easier.

for more information click here

Expect Book Burnings By The Left

An excellent book and much needed too, helping people to know the reality of the ideological landscape at a time when the American educational establishment is failing to do so due to its Left-leaning bias.

Fascism: Not simply brownshirts and thugs

I was somewhat reluctant to purchase this book because I was afraid that it would merely be the rantings of the latest neo-conservative, but I was pleasantly surprised. Instead, I found an exhaustive history of fascism throughout Europe and the United States. Although Goldberg is an admitted conservative, I felt he presented his case fairly objectively. Early on, he makes several references to fascist ideals during the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. Not living during this period, (and frankly, finding some of his assertions hard to believe) I checked the references myself and found them to be indeed factual, which led credibility to the remainder of the book. At times, it does read like a dull history text, but after a while I detected a wry, understated humor that added life to the pages. I would strongly recommend this book for anyone wishing to increase their knowledge of the many forms fascism and its implementation.

for more information click here