JGDS: Jonah Goldberg Derangement Syndrome
I promised a reader of this blog that I'd post on Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism and the gross over-reaction to it from different quarters. It is fascinating to me; before the book was even out, the Amazon page was overrun with the scurrilous attacks of leftists commenting mainly on Goldberg's weight. These were mostly in the form of "tags" placed by teams of determined leftists which you can still see such as "Editor promised cake", "Mmm bacon" and "Cheetohouse Five". As a human being with feelings this might have annoyed him, but it no doubt amused him as an author that an unpublished book was so enraging his liberal detractors that they were behaving like a bunch of fascists before anyone had had a chance to read past the book cover. Besides, Goldberg's physique would resemble Brad Pitt's if you stood him next to Michael Moore, a Buddha-like sage whom I'm sure many of these anger-mongers consider to be a living saint.
Listening to all the interviews on talk radio with Goldberg has made me interested in checking out the book. He talks about how the phrase "liberal fascism" wasn't something he cooked up, but a quote from a speech delivered by H. G. Wells at Oxford in 1932 where Wells made a plea for his version of The New Man: "I am asking for liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." It seemed to Wells that democracy includes too many people who aren't "with the program"; there needs to be totalitarian control by "elites" to effect the correct Utopian system.
Goldberg goes on explain how Stalin didn't like the nationalism of the socialists of Western Europe so, like a capitalist worried about brand confusion, he wouldn't allow them to use "socialist" to describe themselves. Instead, they had to refer to themselves as fascists.
From listening to him converse freely on his topic and field calls from those hostile to his thesis (on Medved's show) you can tell that the guy has done extensive research on the history linking fascism to leftist ideology. I recall I always had difficulty in school and college discerning the difference between fascists and socialists when we discussed their forms of government, other than the fact that they seemed to hate each other. I was told that in the economic sphere the difference can be stated thusly: in socialism the state owns the means of production, i.e., business ventures, whereas in fascism the state has full control over businesses. It always sounded like a distinction without a real difference to me, dreamed up by liberal academics who wouldn't know a good business plan if it bit them in their tenured asses.
So control versus ownership -- reminds me of the adage "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" I'm sure the poor farmer who raised the cow wouldn't see the difference between the two, the state takes all the milk and gives him back 2 gallons a week plus a six of Heineken, or the state takes the cow and then forces him to milk it for them -- since they don't know which end of the cow makes the milk -- paying him a wage of 2 gallons per week plus a fifth of Vodka. Maybe fascism is simply socialism with more cowbell. Or vice versa, with a "Good job, Comrade!" thrown in as a bonus if you aren't one of the ones they kill.
So fascists as the spiritual grandfathers of modern day liberals isn't too much of a stretch for me. Or many others, such as the Anchoress, for example.
I mean, come on... do these Blackshirt blokes look like conservatives? Look more like a bunch of metrosexual John Edwards supporters to me, waiting for the local Whole Foods Market to open.
Anyway, Jonah was quick to point out in all the interviews I heard that he is not accusing all modern day liberals of the horrendous acts of evil which Stalin and Hitler carried out, merely that the tendency to believe in their ideology as an absolute "unified theory" to bring about a bright new age and to curtail individual freedom in order to hasten the realization of this "greater good". And although I haven't heard him state it, I'm sure he wouldn't rule out that fascism does exist within some of the wilder-eyed ranks of the right.
Oh, that reminds me. Speaking of clowns and tricycles, several reader friends have pointed out several small side-shows to the 3-ring circus being put on by those showing the symptoms of the burgeoning mental disorder: Jonah Goldberg Derangement Syndrome. Please feel free to point out warning signs and prescribe treatment and preventive measures.
One warning sign might be linking to a Daily Show youtube video rather than anything substantial. Uhhh... this is a publisher's commercial for the book, OK? Even my 3-year-old can recognize advertising when he sees it and knows that's when you take a bathroom break. And by the way, there is an official blog for Liberal Fascism at National Review. That would be a good thing to read for substance if, say, you can't afford the book.
This is possibly unrelated, but remember when Stephen Morrissey, of all people, was accused of being a fascist? Hey, didn't he write a song called "We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful"?
-----
(Update: Welcome LF-blog readers. I have the computer geeky habit of putting quotes around my search terms, so when I Googled "Jonah Goldberg Derangement Syndrome" last night nothing came up or I'd have acknowledged the existence of the DS was already known. My abbreviation does distinguish between hatred for that other author guy the left dislikes.)
re: "we hate it when our friends become successful"
ReplyDeleteI'd be seriously surprised if Jonah Goldberg still considered Dreher a "friend".
To put it most simply, Rod Dreher has issues.
ReplyDeleteAs he remembers it, he honestly tried to address Jonah's criticisms of Crunchy Cons, but Jonah was too scatter-brained and inconsistent, and Jonah was arguing in bad faith.
Seriously.
For the life of me, I cannot remember a single time Rod tried to address Jonah's criticisms substantively: he wanted to push that discussion aside as if those points had already been wrestled with, when they hadn't. Even now, Rod thinks that this bit of snark from Daniel Larison "more or less nailed the dynamic of that discussion" when all it does is demonstrate the real source of bad faith.
In the other two sideshow links that Pauli points to, we see a very interesting chain of events. Both Rod and Mark Shea balk at the idea that organic agriculture is fascist (which Jonah doesn't argue, for what it's worth), and then both of them have no trouble hinting that the same accusation really should be pointed at things they don't like. For Rod, it's free-market advertising; for Mark, it's the usual litany of Evil Things with Capital Letters.
For Rod, one could argue that he doesn't really mean that advertising is fascist, but this is the same guy who wrote that free-market conservatives are godless materialists. For Mark, the deeper irony is that his rhetorical bread-and-butter of rote, capitalized phrases to dismiss and denigrate his opponents (who are often banned for daring to disagree) is, um, somewhat inimical to genuine discussion.
Great post, Pauli. The attacks on the book by people who haven't read it doesn't surprise me in the least. But Jonah's thesis is right on the button. As he has said himself, what exactly were the fascists looking to conserve?
ReplyDeleteBTW, congrats on the link from the man himself. I was just tickled that he published my e-mail (I'm the guy who promised to be the first to cite him in a dissertation).
Anyway, if you haven't read it yet, go do yourself a favor and grab it, because it's a really great read.
Oh, and as for Shea: he severely distorts Jonah's thesis and displays a complete lack of understanding about political theory? I am shocked. Shocked!
ReplyDeleteOn to the substance of the book, Pauli, I picked it up last week and am trying to find the time to get into it.
ReplyDeleteAnd although I haven't heard him state it, I'm sure he wouldn't rule out that fascism does exist within some of the wilder-eyed ranks of the right.
Actually, Jonah comes right out and say, in his final chapter, "we are all fasists now," in the sense that there are temptations to fascism on the right. I'll have more to say on that when I actually read the book: this thread might not be a bad place to document some passing thoughts about the book.
As an initial thought, I've been mulling over something Jonah said in an interview with John Hawkins at RightWingNews, here:
"...if you were a Martian and you came to planet Earth with a clipboard and you observed politics and history, and you defined the Left as statism, collectivism, hostility to classical liberalism, hostility to traditional Christianity and tradition generally and you defined the Right, at least in the Anglo-American sense, as both traditionalism and limited government -- right? I mean to me, that seems to be a pretty good anatomical description of Left and Right.
"I have never, ever, ever heard anybody make a credible argument that by those standards, Nazism wasn't on the Left. It's obviously so. I think we get too caught up in intellectual labels and buzzwords when it's obvious, if you step back from the painting far enough, where on the canvas the Nazis belong." [emphasis mine]
The definition of Anglo-American conservatism as traditionalism and limited government rings very true. And I think that progressivism is obviously the opposite: tradition, bad; far reaching state power, good.
The problem is, by using two beliefs (the approach to tradition and the approach to the state) to define a one-dimensional political spectrum, Jonah opens the doors for deviations that don't fit the mold.
That is to say, the truly radical libertarians who verge into anarchism and libertinism hate both the state and tradition: they reject both the state's coercive power and even the non-coercive power of traditional institutions.
And, the heretical hyphenated conservatisms -- so-called compassionate conservatism, crunchy conservatism, and now "heroic" conservatism -- love tradition but not limited government: they want big government, so long as it's weilded to advance their traditional aims.
It's not clear where either of these two groups fit on the spectrum between the Right and the Left.
It's not clear where either of these two groups fit on the spectrum between the Right and the Left.
ReplyDeleteMan, I am supposed to be finishing up a dissertation, not blogging, but I had to answer Bubba's question real fast. I would say that if we define conservatism as being an ideology or, better yet, a philosophy that does not believe that perfectibility is a realistic political goal, then the big government cons are not quite in the conservative fold. They are certainly of the right on the political spectrum, but I wouldn't call them conservatives in the Anglo-American sense of the term.
And you're right about certain ideologies not quite fitting the mold one way or the other. One of the problems with political theory is that we get stuck trying to fit everything into neat little boxes. Some things don't fit, and when we try to fit certain groups together (for Jonah it's fascists and progressives, for me it's Thomas Jefferson, Rousseau, and the modern left), you have to acknowledge that there are going to be inconsistencies. People are not all of the same mind, even within political movements and parties. The best we can do is try to generalize as broadly as we can and fit the pieces together in a manner that makes the most sense.
The best we can do is try to generalize as broadly as we can and fit the pieces together in a manner that makes the most sense.
ReplyDeleteRight. There seem to be 2 main types of approaches to accomplish that task. One type is intellectual, the other type is practical. The intellectual might frown at JG's book because he left out the contribution from some obscure philospher, or somesuch. But the practical person, the modern-day center-right or moderate type asks himself "Who's more likely to be fascist? those who extol laissez-faire economics or those who extol political correctness?"
Of course there is a third way to fit the pieces together and that is to use duct tape.
The classical distinction in this country between fascism and socialism has been that they are polar opposites. The more conservative the more fascist, the more "liberal" the more socialist. This is a false dichotomy. Carter the pinko. Regan the Nazi.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that the discussion about fascism's real location on the political spectrum is being held more often these days. However, it's difficult for me to understand where you guys fall on this whole fascism vs. socialism vs. crunchyism issue? I've never really understood your politics, other than you have an opposition to some of Rod's views. For the record, I do share some of Rod's views. But now I am confused by this post. Where do you all stand politically since you have the fascists lining up for the Whole Foods ( WFMI )?
"I was just tickled that he published my e-mail (I'm the guy who promised to be the first to cite him in a dissertation)."
ReplyDeletethat's funny! I was the "bethesda barnes and noble" email. what an insufferable bunch of groupies we are. (i still think drezner is squirrely, after all he's an academic)
what an insufferable bunch of groupies we are.
ReplyDeleteGuilty as charged. Did you go to the talk and book signing last week?
"However, it's difficult for me to understand where you guys fall on this whole fascism vs. socialism vs. crunchyism issue?"
ReplyDeletehow about, crunchyism as creeping fascism, all the more dangerous because it calls itself "conservative"?
"Did you go to the talk and book signing last week?"
ReplyDeleteno, but i did watch BookTV C-span and was very impressed.
I think Kathleen's correct about "creeping fascism". Long, long ago she sent me this link when we were discussing what "authencity" was a cipher for.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you apply the same logic to corporatism? I could say then that your politics is creeping fascism. I don't recall any of you being so critical of the current symbiotic mix of government and large corporations as being fascist. I am not clear how I should interpret your reference to the fascists lining up to enter the publicly traded whole foods either. It is a little inconsistent don't ya think?
ReplyDeletewell, for one thing i don't know what you mean by "corporatism". and i can't imagine why you assume i'm a "corporatist", which is what you seem to be saying.
ReplyDeleteas stated in goldberg's book, the definition of fascism is not simple and doesn't necessarily mean "corporations and government hand in hand", though you may have been taught that at some point. you should read the book.
Well, let me try to help. One reason why Goldberg rouses such anger is that we actually think that being fascist is a very bad thing, whereas Jonah seems undecided. And we normally define "fascism" in terms of the common characteristics of those who called themselves fascists or who have been generally described as fascists. Mostly negative traits, such as chauvinism, racism, militarism, contempt for law, violent goon squads, suppression of women, the subordination of the individual to the State and the cult of personality of the leader.
ReplyDeleteMost of these traits are indeed shared with Communism, as Arendt pointed out 56 years ago. But not liberalism.
It may be true that there are other, more subtle traits characteristic of fascism which are shared with liberalism, but these are shared by pretty much everyone (as Goldberg more or less says). Exceptions would be freemarket liberals of the Austrian type and traditionalist conservativism of the pre-WWI type, but these political forms are completely extinct in the developed world -- nostalgia ideologies for geeks.
In fact, most of the best evidence ofr Jonah's argument comes from well before I was born, and I'm 61 now. In particular, it comes before the Civil Rights movement, which drove the racists from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party.
And finally, many of the negative defining traits of fascism are today more characteristic of the Republican Party to which Goldberg is loyal than it is to the Democratic Party with its liberals. Many libertarians and even a few Republicans (to a degree) -- for example ex-Congressman Bob Barr.
Goldberg's slanderous insults are "fighting words"have evoked some pretty intense hostility, but I don't see why he thinks that that is something to brag about.
Cube, I think corporatism is problematic, but it seems to be more "descriptive" than "prescriptive". There have always been "unholy alliances" between large entities.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe this is "creeping fascism" of a more passive sort. The problem is that once a company hits a certain size there are all sorts of people dependent on the continued success of the firm. You feel the need to engage in "protectionist" measures, or else be willing to lay people off at will in which case you will be called a heartless capitalist. Suddenly your investors are on the phone asking you to buy more insurance and you're calling attorneys to assess the seriousness of the latest 2 lawsuits. It gets easier to start making friends with a few local politicians and seeing if they can pull a few strings for you.
So does a business owner want to be a corporate welfare recipient or a heartless capitalist? That's how I often view the 2 "roads". Of course there might be many miles on those roads. Maybe Catholic Social Teaching is a quarter of a mile down the corporate welfare road, on the right just past Walmart and just before you get to the big golf course.
Paul Zummo, what is your dissertation about? Where are you studying?
ReplyDeleteMy comments were directed at everyone not just you Kathleen.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should change corporatism to Romneyism, and that might make it clearer. I don't have time to read the book, but I love the title and will probably agree with the book.
What I haven't figured out yet is how those of you who are critical of CCism radically differ from the democrats in your political views.
That "you" above doesn't mean Est Quod Est readers, I have quite a few Republican friends, and I would ask them the same question.
Also, I am still not clear why Whole Foods (WFMI) is being associated with fascists in the post.
Because of the whole "Hitler liked organic vegetables" thing.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question, maybe for Bubba: Do you think maybe Jonah regrets bringing that up now that it's what is being fixated on?
Pauli:
ReplyDeleteI am studying at Catholic U in DC. My dissertation is contrasting the political thought of Jefferson and the rest of the Framers, particularly Madison. My thesis is that Jefferson's philosophy is most in accord with Rousseau, and that his uber-democratic, anti-traditionalist strain of thought has some totalitarian overtones, and that this philosophy is more and more becoming the dominant strain of thought in modern America. It's not quite the same thing that Jonah has written, but there are definitely similarities.
"And finally, many of the negative defining traits of fascism are today more characteristic of the Republican Party to which Goldberg is loyal than it is to the Democratic Party with its liberals. Many libertarians and even a few Republicans (to a degree) -- for example ex-Congressman Bob Barr."
ReplyDeleteNot really. I think a lot of Republicans are confused and have grown used to the big state. If the Republicans are guilty, I think they are guilty of wanting to control systems.
The dems however, want to control people. They seem to be the ones obsessed with race, thought control, and personality.
It is a very good thing that JG wrote this book that places the "liberals" in their proper place in the political spectrum. I probably would have characterized the defining traits of democrats as closer to communism than fascism.
Also, I am still not clear why Whole Foods (WFMI) is being associated with fascists in the post.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the whole "Hitler liked organic vegetables" thing.
It's a little more detailed than that. It's not just that Hitler was a vegetarian himself, it's that he tried to propagandize the population towards his preference. Think of Bloomberg's banning of transfats in NYC, smoking bans, etc. In other words, it's the efforts to minimize personal freedom and make people eat more healthy - not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of coercion.
Goldberg's not saying shopping at Whole Foods is itself fascistic (he shops there himself). He's getting at the efforts by some to coerce behavior.
"Also, I am still not clear why Whole Foods (WFMI) is being associated with fascists in the post.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the whole "Hitler liked organic vegetables" thing."
I would take it a step further, and say that liberals wish to persuade themselves and everyone else of their own virtue. Hence they cleave to causes like "let's not trash the environment" and "smoking is bad" and "eating healthy is good" precisely because those arguments are in a certain sense indisputable. They then use these indisputable points as *excuses* for social coercion, which coercion they have railed against when it comes to mores like "marriage before babies" or "marijuana is bad". IOW Pointing to the fact that Hitler dug alternative medicine and organic vegetables demolishes any presumptions of virtue that liberals ascribe to these positions, and therefore makes these causese less useful for liberals generally.
"I think a lot of Republicans are confused and have grown used to the big state."
ReplyDeleteI fully agree, cube. (I'm not sure how corporations can be blamed for that, however. )
PS Cube: you seem to be positing that there is no difference between large institutions in the private sector and those in the public sector. That simply isn't true. What is true is that the private sector can behave like the public sector, and indeed does in situations where a corporation gets too big in powerful. Over these past years a great example of that was (and still is) Wall Street. Finally however, even that house of cards is beginning to tumble down (at long last). Thus i can still argue confidently that the market has a way of sorting things out, whereas there is no such corrective for government bureaucracy. For this reason i find your "romneyism" epithet wrongheaded, even unfair.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure Jonah regrets bringing up organic food, and I'm not sure he should regret it. Getting into the book over lunch today, I see that, in the broadest terms, Jonah defines fascism as a totalitarian, secular religion, and I think that the moral imperative some people feel over eating organic food is a good contemporary symptom of a political ethos that is both totalitarian and religious: what's politcally correct dictates even what we eat, and for many eating organic (or local or indiginous: the criteria becomes every more absurd) is a sort of religious sacrament.
ReplyDeleteDreher did call organic eating sacramental, did he not?
On the question of whether crunchy conservatism contains creeping fascism, I'm still not convinced crunchy conservatism is an actual poltical philosophy that's distinct and cogent. It still seems to be a projection of Rod Dreher's own whims -- which he admitted, insofar as he wrote that he would have tacked on a chapter on foreign policy if his own views on the subject had solidified before the book's publication -- and even as mere Dreherism, this sensibility (with a manifesto!) never struck me as coherent.
For that reason, you could find a lot of troubling stuff that would throw up red (or brown) flags when looking for signs of liberal fascism as I understand it, but I'm not sure what impact these things would have in the end.
For instance, Rod writes that "small is beautiful", but he tends to use this to attack corporations and (bizarrely) even the free market in which economic decisions are made at the individual level, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with statism, to the degree that he supports Huckabee and gushes over Obama.
Rod praises the family, which is the essential traditional institution and bulwark against totalitarianism, but he uses militaristic language to praise the family as "little platoons."
He doesn't seem to think that we can usher in some grand utopia with state action, but he wants to usher in a violent upheval nonetheless: he seems morbidly eager to see Western civilization collapse so his modern Benedicts can rebuild society on its ashes.
There's a lot troubling there.
Mystic, I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that corporations are bigger and more powerful for at least three reasons.
1) What many people seem to miss, we've strayed from the ancient principle of lex talonis (proportional justice) with limited liability and with punitive damages. The former means that the owners of a corporation, be they one majority stockholder or a million retirees, can make unlimited profits while facing risks limited to what they've invested, and I believe this encourages risky ventures. On the other hand, a civil justice system that hands down punitive damages balances out the equation because it can level unlimited penalties on a corporation regardless of whether those penalties are proportional to the damage done. Both need to be removed, as they both distort society, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. For the moment, I would say that the distortions caused by limited liability outweigh those caused by punitive damages, so corporations are larger than they otherwise would be.
2) Collusion between industry and the state. I believe Sowell or Walter Williams pointed out that the best way to reform campaign financing would be to limit the federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers. An individual business is interested primarily in its own bottom line, not the free market: it will support economic freedom if it helps the bottom line and oppose it if it doesn't. If the state didn't assist individual businesses or industries -- at everyone else's expense, through tarrifs, regulation, and price controls -- those business that benefit from this state intervention wouldn't be as big as they are now.
3) Technology. Technology doesn't change moral or political or economic truths, but they do change the landscape in which these truths operate. One reason professional athletes make such tremendous amounts of money compared to the early 20th century is that their feats aren't witnessed merely by a few thousand live spectators and then poorly documented by textual descriptions in newspapers. Thanks to radio and especially television, millions can experience the game: two years ago, the Super Bowl reached 45 million homes. The advertisers are willing to pay more to reach those millions than to publish an ad in a page on the program in the stadium, and that revenue works its way to the atheletes themselves.
Traditional, mainstream conservatives -- note that this does NOT mean "Republicans" as a group -- generally differentiate themselves from Democrats in supporting the free market, which means we oppose the government intervention in the form of tarriffs, and we would also oppose any attempt to regulate new technologies. We oppose #2, which can cause businesses to grow in power, but we affirm #3, which has the same effect.
The concern isn't whether businesses are big or small: it's whether the individual is free.
You guys really make it hard for me to distinguish myself. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more that coerced behavior is the real problem. I think the coercion about food and eating will come. My prediction is it will be a troika of big insurance, big health care, and big government putting their inefficient heads together to coerce us into a lifestyle that conforms to the troika's needs. The food industry will be the big hitler when this happens, and plump round faced office workers will take their forced twice-a-day 30 minute lifestyle walks.
That is actually my concern in the form of a prediction.
Corporations are not really to blame. It is the people who run the corporation who are to blame. In my experience people in these organizations look to government as a partner. Don't dems like to say that, "we will partner with the private sector"? I've never really heard a lot of outrage about government policies that coerce them into doing this or that. Like the farce of sarbanes oxley etc. It wouldn't surprise me if Deloitte & Touche actually wrote the legislation. But you'll hear those same D&T types on the course bitching about taxes or some kind dem touchy feely legislation like universal daycare. Sarbanes Oxley golf good, working poor universal daycare bad.
A pox on both their houses.
All I am trying to say is we are not so clean on our side.
K
ReplyDelete"positing that there is no difference between large institutions in the private sector and those in the public sector"
No I am not. I agree with your further comment here. What I am positing is that their is a gray area where large corporations and government lean on each other a bit too much. From Thompson to Obama, I don't see that the gray area will be changed. I only see it accreting more legislation until people simply accept it as part of their every day life. Sort of like cameras on every street corner. It seems to me with every private sector crisis the government types always feel the need to step in so it never happens again. I am sure that this current problem will have a government fix.
I was referring to Romney's pandering in Michigan as to why I picked Romneyism to represent the mix of big Gov big Business. But you can find it in big Ag and big defense too.
Bubba
ReplyDelete"The concern isn't whether businesses are big or small: it's whether the individual is free."
I don't feel free.
As for Number 3 is a good example of the gray area that I was talking about. Specifically I am thinking about the FCC and the limited frequencies of TV and Radio. The big media companies and big government seem to mix here in unfair ways. It is still the best easiest way to reach people.
The good news is that the internet has diminished big media's grip. I am 100% off the grid in this respect. The only time I've seen Katie C(bs)ouric is on Pauli's blog. I count Pauli's blog as an official news source. I don't even own an antenna. So I only get local fox, local cbs, and pbs. The rest comes in snowy. I don't own cable because I won't pay for commercials. My kids watch podcasts. I've never even seen 24. Listen to KRLA over the internet for free when I can and EWTN for Catholic stuff.
I think what you wrote, if this is Sewell, describes my views very closely. Is there a party or candidate that espouses these views?
Not really. I think a lot of Republicans are confused and have grown used to the big state. If the Republicans are guilty, I think they are guilty of wanting to control systems.
ReplyDeleteLittle-government, libertarian Republicans (e.g. Bob Barr) know that they've been duped. Conservative Christians seem to be figuring that out. Even the bigot paleo constituency is starting to see the light.
All that's left are the neocon imperialist and the anti-tax people. Between the two of them they will bankrupt us, but they don't care because they're international.
And the grafters. Bush's huge deficits include a lot ofpayoffs of various kinds.
And Goldberg is still 100% on board with Bush (to be followed by Romeny or Giuliani, he hopes).
But you know, primary school teacher from Brown and Swarthmore are the real threat, with their fascist hugs and Nazi bran muffins.
John
ReplyDelete"But you know, primary school teacher from Brown and Swarthmore are the real threat, with their fascist hugs and Nazi bran muffins."
The people in my yoga class are harmless Bush haters. Some of them even greet me with a hug. But you know, they'll vote for people who will raise my taxes which means less for my children.
I suppose Brown and Swarthmore are like private ivy league type colleges. So I guess it is okay for well meaning trust fund kids to vote to steel my money from me?
I'll gladly share bran muffins with them any time, or even do yoga with them, but why is it okay for them to make my life harder? Is it okay because they had so much growing up, and while people like me had little compared to them? Taxing my children somehow assuages their guilt?
I really want to understand, perhaps I am missing your point?
John, the bigot paleo cons were the first to figure it out because they are smarter than the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI certainly wouldn't go to rough on the roughage, i.e., bran muffins.... not sugar-free tough, mind you.
I did receive a fascist hug from a primary teacher once; I was 7 years old and that's when I became a life-long Republican.
I really want to understand, perhaps I am missing your point?
ReplyDeletePretty much. Fascism is a lot worse than having people you're envious of raise your taxes. In fact, envy of the educated elite is a common fascist trait.
John
ReplyDeleteMy trust fund comment was not out of envy. I've actually known a few ivy league trust fund kids once I got into the workforce after college. It was amazing how arrogant, naive, and incompetent they were. I realize not all elite trust fund kids fit this description, just the ones I've met.
I am pretty much pro trust fund and wealth too. I hope you are wealthy. I would just like a little empathy from my rulers. My experience with the elite bran muffinistas has been either pity or contempt toward the lower economic classes. I've never seen the empathy from them that would inform them to perhaps get out of my way.
So much for envy.
I really don't think fascism is worse than raising my taxes. I think that my taxes are the result of fascist like thinking. Taxes, raised or not, is a type of oppression.
Politicians have managed to extract a hefty measure of wealth out of "the people" without firing a shot. If we resist our taxation aren't we fined, impoverished, imprisoned, or even killed?
Where is the justice in that?
I fully expect to be oppressed by the fascist left in this country, because their actions demonstrate that they only view people through a utilitarian lens. We are batteries to them. But it really bothers me that some of it is coming from people who claim to be on my side. I think both sides are suffering from an overdose of materialism.
And Goldberg is still 100% on board with Bush (to be followed by Romeny or Giuliani, he hopes).
ReplyDeleteWow. Not only have you not read the book, you make an assertion that is so tremendously untrue, it only confirms that you're not exactly the brightest bulb out there.
Not only have you not read the book, you make an assertion that is so tremendously untrue,
ReplyDeletePaul, Mr. Emerson is our guest here so it would behoove you to support your assertion. Enlighten my dimness also.
I really don't think fascism is worse than raising my taxes. I think that my taxes are the result of fascist like thinking. Taxes, raised or not, is a type of oppression.
ReplyDeleteI think you're nuts, ignorant,and clueless. However, as someone who has no idea whatsoever what fascism is, you are Goldberg's ideal audience.
Wow. Not only have you not read the book, you make an assertion that is so tremendously untrue, it only confirms that you're not exactly the brightest bulb out there.
Zummo, Goldberg has a long record as a movement Republican supporting Bush. If he's putting out little peeps of dismay by now, he's just another rat leaving the sinking shit. To my knowledge, Goldberg has never opposed Bush on any significant point.
In general, when you call someone stupid, it's a good idea to make it clear how they are stupid. Otherwise, people think that you yourself are stupid.
"I think you're nuts, ignorant,and clueless. However, as someone who has no idea whatsoever what fascism is, you are Goldberg's ideal audience."
ReplyDeleteThanks John, that didn't take long. There is a whole litany of things that we have not discussed yet about this topic, and you call me names on the first day. I started with taxes. I could have started with abortion, race politics, or perhaps FCC-Corporate domination of access to the broadcast spectrums. Every time I think I know what fascism is , someone comes along and calls me names. I will accept your descriptions of me, and re-educate myself yet again.
How do you define a government that takes around half of what you earn?
Perhaps you can educate me, please tell me what books I should read or perhaps you can define fascism for me?
My income is the only thing that provides me with enough leisure to participate in society. Without money my family will become more dependent on the state. The more I am taxed the weaker and more dependent I become.
To my knowledge, Goldberg has never opposed Bush on any significant point.
ReplyDeleteGoldberg has written about a dozen columns detailing how Bush is not a conservative, decrying big government conservatism, mocking Bush for his notion that "when somebody is hurting, government has got to move," and wrote a chapter at the end of the book mentioning how Bush's brand of conservatism demonstrates creeping right-wing fascism. Yeah, but other than that, what has he criticized about Bush? Good point.
In general, when you call someone stupid, it's a good idea to make it clear how they are stupid.
In general, when you criticize a book, it's a good idea to have read the book or have demonstrated a passing acquaintance with what the author actually wrote, or else people might think you're an ignorant blowhard.
Oh, I missed this.
ReplyDeleteIn general, when you call someone stupid, it's a good idea to make it clear how they are stupid.
I think you're nuts, ignorant,and clueless.
Well, I guess John didn't call Cube stupid.
Thanks, Paul. I do remember Jonah being highly critical of compassionate conservatism, saying it'a another instance of what he calls "political narcissism".
ReplyDeletePaul Zummo is right that Jonah Goldberg has been a vocal critic of Bush's compassionate conservatism, even in his book on fascism, but I should add that his criticism has been long standing.
ReplyDeleteI believe the earliest documented criticism we have is this NRO article from 1998, ten years ago and two years prior to Bush's election: about the time Bush first started invoking the idea and begging the question, what's not compassionate about traditional conservatism?
John's assertions about Jonah Goldberg are simply untrue and easily disproved.
He also called the Iraq war a mistake.
ReplyDeletebut I should add that his criticism has been long standing.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, and I was going to add that. He's not the only one (I voted for McCain in the New York state primary in 2000) who had problems with Bush before he was even elected, but he's certainly not a Johnny come lately to conservative criticisms of Bush.
To be fair to John, sometimes we don't really appreciate what is going on internally within the other side's political discussion. I bet a fair number of conservatives think Maureen Dowd has never said a bad thing about the Clintons, or that Daily Kos must be a hotbed of love for their side.
Agreed, and it may be that people on one side of the aisle miss the other side's criticisms simply because those criticisms are different.
ReplyDeleteMany on the left thinks that Bush lied to get us into Iraq and should withdraw our troops immediately; many on the right believe that Bush hasn't been effective enough in communicating the rationale for the war and that we need make every effort to win rather than delay defeat. Some conservatives are very vocal in their criticism of Bush, but they offer conservative criticism, which liberals might not count since it doesn't match their grievances.
I believe that Jonah makes the point in his book that Bush didn't offer a Republican alternative to Clintonian triangulation: he offered a Republican version of it. For that reason, both conservatives and liberals have had plenty of complaints about both administrations, but it's still the case that the content of those complaints will not overlap very much.
Thanks for the information. I don't follow Goldberg closely at all, but everything I've read of his shows him to be a reliable movement conservative. But not quite, it seems, a Bush loyalist, except whenever Bush's opponent is a Democrat or a liberal (which is my vantage).
ReplyDeleteAnd he's criticized Bush's big-government compassionate-conservative side -- i.e., his liberal-fascist side. I would rather that he criticized Bush's militarist, authoritarian, demagogic fascist-fascist side -- the part of fascism that has made fascists hated in the world. But instead Goldberg protects Bush's fascist-fascist side.
And today he's saying (contra Neiwert) that the whole history of American fascist movements is irrelevant to his book.
But thanks for the correction, and I won't misrepresent Goldberg in the future.
John, you ought to write a book: "Fascist Fascists and the Fascistically Fascisms they Facsimilate".
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, everyone, it's Jonah's use of the word "fascist" that John here says is slanderous and insulting. It's Bush's policies that are simultaneously fascist-fascist and demagogic.
ReplyDeleteConsider:
ReplyDeleteBush's foreign policy is widely considered, by both sides of the aisle to be Wilsonian.
It's considered Wilsonian because of its advocacy of intervention -- including military intervention -- for the sake of spreading democracy.
It is right and proper, leftists would argue, to call George W. Bush (R) a fascist because of his Wilsonian foreign policy.
It is, however, slanderous and insulting, to call Woodrow Wilson (D) a fascist because of his, erm, Wilsonian foreign policy.
And never mind that, as Jonah demonstrates, Bush's policy is a very mild form of what Wilson both advocated and practiced.