Liberal Fascism

I'm in the middle of Jonah Goldberg's fascinating and (to put it mildly) controversial new book Liberal Fascism. It's currently #1 on Amazon, which is good because it should be widely read and discussed. For more than half a century the left has not been shy about hurling the charge of 'fascist' at conservatives. It's been a given since the post-war era that Mussolini and Hitler were men of the right and the political systems they spawned reflected their right-wing extremism. My buddy Mike and I have argued for years that this is completely wrong, that Hitler had much more in common with the left than with conservatism, indeed that Hitler was the antithesis of a conservative. Jonah's book now turns history on its head and sets the record straight. Not only does he provide a compelling argument that modern day liberalism in America finds its roots in the early 20th century Progressive movement, he also shows how American Progressives were brothers to the European Fascists, from Mussolini's Italy to Hitler's National Socialists. They read the same books, they had the same influences, they espoused the same policies, they shared a mutual admiration. He even devotes an entire chapter to the argument that the first fascist moment of the 20th century did not occur in Mussolini's Italy but in America under Woodrow Wilson. A fairly shocking assertion, yes, but one he backs up with a truckload of facts, as he does with all of his assertions throughout the book. The left has been howling incoherently about the book since long before it was published but it seems to me that Jonah has now changed the playing field. If they want to continue making the case that Fascism is a product of the right, it is now up to the left to refute Jonah's charges with some compelling evidence of their own. So far, I haven't seen any.

A few notes. First, regarding the cover, I am of two minds. I think it accurately sums up what Fascism in the United States would look like, what it does look like. It comes dressed with a smile, a hug, and a promise that the government will make life better. So it's perfect in that sense. But at the same time it makes the book appear to be an instant political book, one of those silly things that an Ann Coulter or a Bill O'Reilly produces every few months and which eventually ends up on the $1.00 overstock table. And it's not that sort of book at all. It's a work of major historical importance, one that deserves to be read now and in the future as the definitive work on its subject. But the cover gives others ammunition to dismiss it as just another conservative bomb-throwing polemic.

Second, I've heard Jonah state in interviews that he became more of a libertarian as he wrote the book. I have been tending more in that direction myself and reading the book has likewise made me more so. The modern idea that all issues within the public square must be dealt with by government action is now pervasive. It has seeped even into conservative thought ("compassionate conservatism", "heroic conservatism", etc.) and I find it not only counter-productive, but dangerous - fascistic, if you will. Year by year, we tend more in the direction of a 'religion of the state,' as Jonah defines Fascism, one that:

assumes the organic unity of a body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.

This tendency must be fought if we are to remain truly free people. Jonah's book should be read and discussed in this light by all thinking people.

Finally, Jonah makes a case against the argument "It can't happen here" by showing that it has already happened. To those who still need convincing that there are fascists among us, read this post from Captain Ed regarding Hillary Clinton's Health Care task force back in 1993. Read it with Jonah's quote above in mind, especially the "any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good," part. This sends a shiver up my spine. Hillary Clinton should be made to answer for it but probably won't. After all, does anyone expect the media which was ready to help her achieve her aims back in 1993 will act any differently today?