Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Daniel Pipes :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fascism's Legacy: Liberalism
by Daniel Pipes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



 

Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis." Really.

His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism. Likewise, Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party.

These facts jar because they contradict the political spectrum that has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, which places communism at the far left, followed by socialism, liberalism in the center, conservatism, and then fascism on the far right. But this spectrum, Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday), reflects Stalin's use of fascist as an epithet to discredit anyone he wished – Trotsky, Churchill, Russian peasants – and distorts reality. Already in 1946, George Orwell noted that fascism had degenerated to signify "something not desirable."

To understand fascism in its full expression requires putting aside Stalin's misrepresentation of the term and also look beyond the Holocaust, and instead return to the period Goldberg terms the "fascist moment," roughly 1910-35. A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.

Goldberg's triumph is establishing the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.

As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If the German version was militaristic, the American one (which Goldberg calls liberal fascism) is nearly pacifist. Goldberg quotes historian Richard Pipes on this point: "Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism." He proves this confluence in two ways.

First, he offers a "secret history of the American left":

  • Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism featured a "militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist" program, enabled by the exigencies of World War I.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fascist New Deal" built on and extended Wilson's government.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society established the modern welfare state, "the ultimate fruition" (so far) of this statist tradition.
  • The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about "an Americanized updating" of the European Old Right.
  • Hillary Clinton hopes "to insert the state deep into family life," an essential step of the totalitarian project.

To sum up a near-century of history, if the American political system traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, "more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered."

Second, Goldberg dissects American liberal programs – racial, economic, environmental, even the "cult of the organic" – and shows their affinities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.

If this summary sounds mind-numbingly implausible, read Liberal Fascism in full for its colorful quotes and convincing documentation. The author, hitherto known as a smart, sharp-elbowed polemicist, has proven himself a major political thinker.

Beyond offering a radically different way to understand modern politics, in which fascist is no more a slander than socialist, Goldberg's extraordinary book provides conservatives with the tools to reply to their liberal tormentors and eventually go on the offensive. If liberals can eternally raise the specter of Joseph McCarthy, conservatives can counter with that of Benito Mussolini.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Edmund Burke & English Whiggism
Mr Andrew,
Can you provide some sources to your assertions that "Liberalism has its origins in English Whiggism" and "Edmund Burke - a man who spent his entire life fighting conservatism"?
I'm not disputing your assertions. I want to verify them.
If Andrew is no longer around to answer, can anyone else help me?
Thanks

Liberal Fascism
Mr. Pipes,
I realize your reference to Campus Watch's account of "McCarthyism" is incidental to your very good review of Mr. Goldberg's book. But by citing it, you give it credibility it doesn't deserve. I've read Evans' biography of Sen. McCarthy very carefully, and he proves that almost everything in the standard "history" of McCarthy (which the Campus Watch account mindlessly recites) is false.

Joe McCarthy suffered enough unfair attacks during his too-short lifetime. Evans' exhaustive research proves that almost every person McCarthy investigated was far from innocent--and that some were even greater security threats than he suspected. Evans has also established that these people (and their protectors in the Democrat Party) waged a campaign of lies to discredit McCarthy, and so conceal their own disloyalty or negligence. Now that the facts are clear, why do anything to help their slurs linger on?

Liberal Fascism
Absolute nonsense - the political equivalent of the Da Vinci Code. Anyone with the slightest grip on historical realities knows Liberalism has its origins in English Whiggism which predates the French revolution by decades. And what did the Whigs believe in? Exactly what Pipes and Goldberg say they believe in. And one of the greatest Liberal/Whig thinkers? Edmund Burke - a man who spent his entire life fighting conservatism only for his reputation and legacy to be hijacked by the right in the twentieth century, principally because they needed some intellectual ballast.
The reference to the Da Vinci Code was intentional - we can have hours of fun finding links and forming chains between the unlikliest things. For every 'liberal' who praised Stalin or Hitler I could find you a conservative but I don't see the point. The Enlightenment writers who influenced the French revolutionaries had a similar effect on the authors of the Declaration of Independence but only a fool would call Jefferson a fascist. Unfortunately this is exactly the sort of chop logic used in this article.
Incidentally the idea that Fascism and Communism are very similar is not exactly original. Both are totalitarian. The only credible opponent of totalitarianism is liberalism.
Or do you think Sarah Palin is the answer?

Where, then, are the conservatives?
"In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone."

That sounds pretty good to me. Why then do people that call themselves "conservatives" today feel the need to meddle in my life via social issues?

If you're leaving me alone, then you shouldn't mind if I get an abortion.

If you're leaving me alone, then you shouldn't mind if I like to smoke a little crack now and then.

If you're leaving me alone, then you shouldn't mind if I play a little poker on the Internet.

Or maybe you would still mind, but your strong conservative convictions would force you to set aside your personal morals in the greater interest of "leaving citizens alone".

There's more to being left alone than not paying taxes.

When I find a conservative that actually adheres to these principles, that will be the first one that might have a chance of getting my vote.

It seems there's a fork in the spectrum after "conservative", to either "fascist" or "libertarian". Unfortunately the current conservative camp is so in the pocket of organized religion that it has gone decidedly in the fascist direction.

If you want to mince words, the campaign slogan "Country First" is very much an example of exalting the state in favor of the individual. Is this not at the core of the author's definition of facism?

1990's Clinton Healthcare was Fascist
On talk radio and other outlets, the current big government/ economy control/ increased spending initiatives (such as increased nationalization of healthcare), are commonly called socialism. But in the case of healthcare, socialism would mean that there is no private ownership of either healthcare provider organizations or of health product manufacturing facilities. Profit making would not be allowed at all. But Hillarycare allowed both private ownership and profit making

Fascism allows for private ownership and the profit motive so long as both are tightly controlled by government. This is the healthcare Ms. Clinton (the former "co-president") tried to shove down our throats in '93-'94 and I believe would try to do again if elected President.

From before the start of WWII, German munitions makers were allowed only a very slim profit margin. This certainly affected Oskar Schindler of Schindler’s List fame. Hitler told the German munitions makers not to worry about a very slim profit margin. They could make it up on volume. By sheer coincidence of course, this is exactly what Hillary said to pharmaceutical manufactures in '93.

Many talk radio personalities, like my home town favorite Neal Boortz, are generally well educated. What can be done to educate them so as to change their mantra on this? It surely would confound current big government advocates, who believe that 'fascist' is more pejorative than 'socialist'.

Thank you, Speed Triple...
Yes, you are correct that a fool like Jonah Goldberg is not worth arguing with.

But I believe that conservatives have traditionally been quite fond of another saying, this one by Edmund Burke:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to remain silent."

If anybody here at this blog honestly believes Goldberg's thesis that liberalism some variant form of fascism, they are being strangely silent in Goldberg's defense.




explanation for Eddie and others
Unfortunately, most of the comments about this article only betray the, um... "unusual" thought processes of the posters.

This old saying applies perfectly: "Never argue with a fool because onlookers can't tell the difference"

How very odd!
Nobody at Townhall.com is willing to seriously defend Jonah Goldberg's book---?

Jonah Goldberg, what a guy!
Smeared the libs with a big fat lie
But when the facts came out to play
Jonah's friends all ran away.


Thank you, Boutte...
for your response.

May I judge from your comments that you are including Jonah Goldberg among the neocons you mention as indulging in "scare talk"?

May I be so bold as to ask a few questions, since we are seemingly the only two souls in this place--

1. Do you consider yourself to be a conservative?

2. Do you consider Jonah Goldberg to be a genuine conservative or not?

3. Do you consider his book to be an authentic example of conservative thinking or not?

4. May I also ask whether you clicked the link above and read the NYT article about Hoover and Truman, and if so, what was your reaction?

Thanks very much.

As an acknowledged liberal, I'm doing my civil best to engage in respectful dialog here at this site about a book with which I strongly disagree, but I'm not getting too many takers!

I'm wondering why that is... is it because of me, or is it because of Goldberg?

Awfully quiet around here!
Why, it's practically funereal... almost as if a beautiful hypothesis had just been slain by some ugly little facts...




I'm surprised by the lack of response...
But I'm going to go ahead and post again anyway. I have a question for everyone here.

According to a recent NYT article by Tim Weiner, "A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html? ex=1356066000&en=51115b422df80200&ei=5090&partner=rssuserla nd&emc=rss

Here's my question:

Who would it be correct to label a "fascist":

a) the conservative J. Edgar Hoover

b) the liberal Harry S. Truman

c) both Hoover and Truman

d) neither Hoover nor Truman

Hmmm... no answer....
Well, after having asked repeatedly for anyone, including Mr. Pipes himself, to provide an instance of Jonah Goldberg's definition of "fascism", and not getting an answer, I'm going to be so bold as to assert that is because his book studiously avoids defining the word.

And that is intellectually dishonest.

Since the point of his book is that he objects to the supposed misuse of the word by others who hurl it as a mindless political insult, it is incumbent on him to actually define the term.

Instead he engages in such frivolous misuse of the word himself as to make a joke of all previous misuse by others.

Yes, Mr.Goldberg, it is true, as you state, that under President Roosevelt, German and Japanese people were sent to internment camps during World War II.

It is equally true that in the UK, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, exactly the same thing happened.

No, I'm not making this up, go see for yourself:

http://www.annefrankguide.com/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?oid=448 4

But Roosevelt the liberal is tarred as a Fascist while Churchill the conservative is not.

This is so thoroughly dishonest as to be shameful to any honest conservative.













Thanks, renny!
"totalitarianism based on military power without total assumption of the private sector, etc."

Is this your own definition of fascism, or are you quoting from the Jonah Goldstein book?

Fascism might be described as
totalitarianism based on military power without total assumption of the private sector, as Hitler did not assume control of all the business of Germany.

Mussolini evidently did control the Italian ec. during his tenure, so his fascism sounds exactly like the USSR's communism.

Today, "fascism" like "racism" and "sexism" has lost its emotional force from overuse. The press called Giuliani a fascist and a Hitler for moving the homeless into shelters and cleaning up 42nd St. The Daily Krap and movealong.org bloggers call Bush a fascist for not signing the Dem. expansion of SCHIP to cover the middle class with a program designed for poor children.

I'm sure if Obama is nom'd and doesn't win, the MSM will weep and wail about how fasciest AND racist the US still is. They are constant ad hominem attacks without meaning or substance.

Federal Reserve CORPORATION
** Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report,Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

Our Economy is RUN by Private bankers, the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.

Through the years the Power over the value of money has been given over to a private banking cartel.

The Federal Reserve Bank is no more a part of the Federal Government than is Federal Express Corporation.

This money powers is what has destroyed the Liberty of Free Enterprise (no such thing today with the massive federal regulations)and is the CAUSE of all of our DEBT TODAY.

John Acton writes:
Where's the part where it "handed to private businessmen the control over the economy and the value of money"?
--------
ITS the ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM JOHN.
Since 1913 the Federal Reserve has slowly gained control over the entire economy of America.
It took steps through the years to now have it completely in their hands as it IS TODAY.

-------
John writes:


The battle over paper "script" and banks controlling currency was lost in the 1830s and not 1913.
------

WRONG!
You have the Federal Government mixed up with private bankers allowed by States.
NOT the Federal Government.

The Federal Government NEVER issued fiat paper until the introduction of the Federal Reserve Banking Notes.



On 10 July 1929 the United States replaced its large size currency, like the Series 1923 Silver Certificate One Dollar bill above (click on the image for the reverse design), with small size notes, like the corresponding Series 1928 note following:



The purpose of this change was simply to save some money on paper, but the timing inadvertently signified a new era in United States money. When the change was made there were no less than six kinds of United States paper currency, but only three months later the stock market crash ushered in the era of the Great Depression, during which three of those kinds of currency would disappear. Thirty years later, two of the remaining kinds of currency would also disappear, leaving only one

The complete fiat paper of today.
The Federal Reserve Banking Notes


http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm

The Creation of the Federal Reserve Corp
John Acton writes: 3:11 PM
Re: The 16th Amendment did what?
"Article. XVI. [Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913]

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
-------
Direct opposition to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Congress ALONE is given the power to control money and its value. NOT PRIVATE BANKERS.

Article 1, Section 8 Clause 5

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

After "passage" of the 16th amendment, legislation created the Privately owned Federal Reserve Corporation.
The bankers now control the value of money and its distribution.
TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The FR then went about getting the US off the Gold Standard to be able to print the fiat paper Federal Reserve Notes all based in DEBT.
Without this system, the Federal Government was KEPT RESTRICTED TO ITS ENUMERATED POWERS.


CONTINUED





Still waiting...
for Jonah Goldberg's definition of "fascism"...

Surely he must have defined the term somewhere near the beginning of his book?

Proud Liberal (8:34am)
(---
I was alive during WWII. I'm not sure that Goldberg and Pipes were. Fascism to the rank and file Americans meant lock-step authoritarianism. The iconic picture is of a group of Nazi soldiers marching in lock-step with their legs swinging in unison. Fascism is indelibly linked with authoritarianism in the popular mind of that day.

Goldberg and Pipes are "revisionists" from the point of view of people who actually lived through that period.
---)

Tout Au Contraire!

Oriana Fallaci, who's WW2 credentials are better than most (since she lived in fascist Italy during WW2), states unequivocally that fascism is a leftist animal. Which is why at the close of the war many former National Socialist Germans (Nazi) and Fascist Italians found homes in the Soviet Union.

Also scale rather crooked
Demonstrated by the fact that Pakistani textbooks printed during the misrule of Gen. Zia ul-Haq (known for hypocritical "if you SHAVE everyday, then you SIN everyday") can describe the Awami League as "right wing" (when Awami League included--and still includes--many non-Muslims).

Or that Pakistani-lobbied US-Congressmen (such as Tom Harkin, Edolphus Townes and Major Owens) could describe the typically left-wing Congress(I) governments of India as "Hindu fascist".

the constitution
article 1, section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,(chosen by the legislature thereof) for six years;
Amendment XVII:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;
(ratified? 4/18/1913)


John Acton
Fine contribution to the discussion, John.

Re: Re-defining "Liberalism"
"SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY: A principle of Reformed Christian social ethics, usually associated with the thought of Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper*, that identifies a number of God- ordained creational spheres, which include the family, the state, culture, and the church. These spheres each have their own organizing and ruling ordinances, and each maintains a measure of authority relative to the others. Just social and political structures, therefore, should be ordered so that the authority of each sphere is preserved (see Limited Government and Subsidiarity, The Principle of)."

"LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The idea that government is not all-competent. Government is one social institution among others having its own distinct sphere of responsibility and authority. The tendency of government is to assert regulatory authority beyond its proper bounds. Limited government was an essential idea undergirding the founding of the American republic. The framers of the Constitution, who had experienced first-hand the tyranny (see Tyranny) of the British monarchy, reckoned that it was imprudent to endow one branch of government with supreme power. They reasoned that unless authority was distributed equally among different branches of government, fallen human nature would eventually cause leaders to become tyrants. As Lord Acton wrote nearly a century later, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Key thinkers include John Jay*, James Madison*, Alexander Hamilton*, Thomas Jefferson*, and John Adams*."

"TYRANNY: A form of government where a single ruler is vested with absolute power. The defective version of monarchy (see Monarchy, Statism, and Totalitarianism). Any absolute and oppresive power. Infamous tyrants include Mao Tse-Tung*, Adolf Hitler*, and Joseph Stalin*."

From: Dictionary of Key Terms for a Free and Virtuous Society

Re: Re-defining "Liberalism"
"SUBSIDIARITY, THE PRINCIPLE OF: A principle from Catholic Social Teaching but with correspondences to American federalism (see Limited Government) and the Dutch Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty (see Sphere Sovereignty) which views society as comprised of various networks of natural mediating institutions (such as family, neighborhoods, churches, voluntary organizations, the free press, among others). Each of these institutions has natural functions, responsibilities, and obligations. For example, families raise children, churches provide moral and spiritual guidance, and so on.

"Subsidiarity teaches that the higher or more complex social structures (such as government) should not interfere unnecessarily in the affairs of the lower social structures (such as the family). Unnecessary interference from the higher structures robs the lower structures of their natural functions. Over time this interference can cause the breakdown of the mediating institutions in a society. If breakdown occurs politics will replace private association as the infrastructure of society.

"Subsidiarity does allow for the interference of higher institutions in the affairs of lower ones in situations of crisis, emergency, or when they are not capable of being self-sufficient. However, when such interference occurs it should be specifically focused, limited, temporary, and seek to reestablish the institution's self-sufficiency."

Pipes Chases Ghosts
Pipes:
"If this summary sounds mind-numbingly implausible,"

Boy, does it ever!!

"...read Liberal Fascism in full for its colorful quotes and convincing documentation."

Err, well, maybe I'll put it on my reading list, someplace.

Things are looking up for the Liberal-Democratic agenda when conservatives like Mr. Pipes have to concoct up unlikely ghost-liberals, like his 'fascist-liberals', to attack.

Re: Re-defining "Liberalism"
"MODERN LIBERALISM: A term used to describe a political philosophy with progressive cultural and political viewpoints. Modern liberals are not always hostile to the free market, but they do think that if left to itself the random nature of the market will produce poverty and inequality. They argue that state action is necessary in all areas where human welfare is at risk, including direct government assistance, pensions, unemployment insurance, and health care. Liberals actively lobby for social change through political and legislative means. Their motivation for proposing radical reforms usually stem from a perceived violation of justice, fairness, or a sense of social equality. Today's usage is often associated with such terms and concepts as legal activism, government regulation of the economy, and the redistribution of wealth. Key thinkers include John Kenneth Galbraith, Upton Sinclair*, John Rawls, Reinhold Niebuhr*, and Walter Rauschenbusch*."

"STATISM: Generally, a program or viewpoint that looks to the state for resolution of social and moral problems, rather than to individual effort. Specifically, a condition where the nongovernmental institutions of a society develop an overextended and unhealthy reliance upon political structures for the solution of problems. Statism stands in direct violation of the principle of subsidiarity (see Subsidiarity, The Principle of) and sphere sovereignty (see Sphere Sovereignty). Statists believe that the resolution to social problems should be obtained through legislative measures."

Re: Re-defining "Liberalism"
"If you were to substitute 'classical liberalism' for "conservatism" in that phrase, you might be closer to political reality.

"Those commenting here and elsewhere in defense of what in the U.S. is now called 'Liberalism' should consider the means that are necessary and employed to achieve its ends, and the effects of those means on human interactions, individual liberty, as well as on the political economy."

"CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: A term used to describe a political philosophy commonly held in nineteenth-century England and France but now undergoing a renaissance in the United States. Classical liberals advocate free markets, a vibrant array of nongovernmental institutions (such as civic groups, schools, churches, etc.), and minimal tax-financed government services. Classical liberals firmly believe that both persons and property should be protected from physical harm. They also emphasize the strict enforcement of contracts. Classical liberals, following Lord Acton, consider liberty to be the highest political value but not to the point of becoming a worldview. Examples of classical liberal thinkers include Frederic Bastiat*, Lord Acton*, Alexis de Tocqueville*, John Locke*, John Stuart Mill*, and Friedrich Hayek*."

Re: The 16th Amendment did what?
"Article. XVI. [Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913]

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Where's the part where it "handed to private businessmen the control over the economy and the value of money"?

The battle over paper "script" and banks controlling currency was lost in the 1830s and not 1913.

Jeff, You want documentation
Work for it

Documentation

Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library.
Sources are listed below.
The quote starts on page 259.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microfilm:

California State University at San Jose
Clark Library, Government Floor
Phone (408)924-2770
Microfilm
Call Number:
J
11
.R5
Congressional Record, Vol. 109
88th Congress, 1st Session
Appendix Pages A1-A2842
Jan. 9-May 7, 1963
Reel 12

Pot and Kettle
Allowing people to kill other (very young and defenseless) people without trial or threat to themselves simply for being inconvenient is a good thing?

Once again, I ask...
...on which page of his book does Jonah Goldberg define what the word "fascism" means?

Won't somebody please answer?

Neocons
The only real difference between state capitalism and socialism is their purported ends: State capitalism makes the state the owner of all property and profits with the profits going to those who manage the economy. Socialism wants the profits to go to the sheep. Guess who wins!

Neoconservatism has been attributed to some who are, in fact, simply the duped gentry who dance the tune. Bush may be one or the other -- it's a tough call to say for sure, and he probably is simply suffering from cognitive dissonance. The purists are those like Kristol and that clique who are not so afflicted and are happy to play both ends against the middle.

Indeed the concept of the "centrist" is simply another useful tool. Centrism supposes a continous spectrum from left to right. Strauss and his devotees see, instead, a dialectic of contraries that they manipulate from outside any such continuity. Their modified Hegelianism is a handy tool that lets them play the field so that their "synthesis" is their gain. The Gentry and rabble are simply useful idiots.

A vicious game, indeed.

I lived then
I campaigned in my first campaign for AuH20. I'm for Goldwater and Lodge.

Also, if proved wrong
Also if we find it is false, I want to know it. I want to try and keep our history accurate and not "redone" to fit either a left or right agenda.

Report history accurately and let people add their own bias.

Good for Huckster
I do agree with Huckster to be suspicious. Some of us that lived back then recall those things from that time period. But, if you didn't live then, you should check it out.

In fact, I wish more people would check out things more.


Scout
I do not doubt it is on the web. I found it several places. I also found dozens of places where kids want cards and DiHydrogen Oxide is deadly. I sent it to Snopes to see if they can actually have it looked up in the documents.

If they find it, I will admit that it is real. Otherwise, I suspend judgement.

Old Man is Right
Communist Goals (1963)


Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963



Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

......

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
.......


40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.




http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Neocons
"My understanding (challenge it if you like) is that a neoconservative has traditional, 'conservative' social views, but socialist government leanings."

I don't agree. If that were true, Huckabee would be the perfect neocon, but from what I've seen most of the neocons are against him.

I see neocons as people who are essentially centrists on social issues and hawks abroad. I don't really see Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Podhoretz, etc. as people who have social issues at the top of their list (save immigration). At home...well, that's harder. To me it looks a lot like a variant of state capitalism, which involves the state but not in the same way that outright socialism does.

Old Man
It just seems that text sounds more like something someone wrote last year and called it something in the Congressional Record, knowing that it is not checkable on line and tough to check off. And since it can't be easily checked and fits with the real situation, people would buy it.

I just have a hard time thinking a politician in 1963 was that smart.

As for how it could happen if it wasn't in the goals, whose goal was it for Brittany Spears to turn into a stupid whore?

Huckster
Remember that he wasn't alone. Many books were written on what communists and socialists were saying needed to change and how to bring about that change here.

Socialism was very popular in the early 1900's and FDR, of course, was one of the main proponents of advancing socialism. Even today, you will find many in the "progressive" (socialist) movement stating those same goals and the need for "change."

However, if it wasn't them, who achieved all those goals that have been reached in our nation.

How can you say they didn't express those goals when they have achieved them. Maybe you mean they did the actions without thinking what they would achieve?

Not sure how you are thinking because the goals have been reached by somebody and they aren't the goals the nation was founded on and do match what we see in most socialist nations.

Oxymoron: Neoconservative = Conservative
Iandelor wrote:

"Don't confuse "conservative" with "neoconservative". They are not the same. George W. Bush is rightly called a "neoconservative", though most of the people who call him that have no idea what it means. My understanding (challenge it if you like) is that a neoconservative has traditional, "conservative" social views, but socialist government leanings."

Yes. They are not the same. However, your characterization of the Neoconservative is weak. In fact, "traditional, conservative social views" cannot be attributed to them and their tastes in government are simpy totalitarian.

Neoconservatism (or "neoliberalis", makes no difference in fact) operates on the basis of the "Noble Lie", hardly a traditional conservative posture.

The Noble Lie is a deception delivered by a few who thnk they have the solution to the worlds ills, at least for a while, and believe that to tell the truth to the well meaning gentry or the self-serving, stupid rabble, is to invite their own destruction. So they lie and tell us what we want to hear, talking up patriotism, or any other hot-button issue that gets us all running like lemmings in one direction. They select the candidates/leaders, manage the economy, and engage us in international conflicts so they can be the guiding force behind, and the enforcers of obedience to their will.

If it suits their purpose at the time, they can wear whatever coat of political colors suits them. They fancy themselves to be the intellectual and political gurus now and for the future. We are the sheep enlisted to do their will.


Sieg Heil Boutte! part 2
"It is secular, but its leaders did deals with religious leaders to keep them out of their hair. It is founded on racial definitions and faith in its "specialness" as an ethnicity."

It is a secular democracy which invited its native Arabs in 1948 to participate in. It is founded on RELIGIOUS identity, not racial (learn the difference). All of its citizens, Jewish and non Jewish possess full democratic rights, including the practice of their religion, unlike in of the animal Islamic countries surrounding them.

"It trumpets its youth and modernity contrasted with the backwardness of others adjacent to its homeland, whom it treats as helots and second-class humans for cheap labor purposes, confining them in concentration camps and pushing them around."

Errr, Israel IS the only modern, advanced democracy in the Middle East. The Arab cultures surrounding it ARE backward, mired in the same muck for 1000 years now, as the most underachieving culture on Earth. Israel is forced to take measures in its self defense against the cowardly terrorists attacking it who target women and children. Israel's mistake has been not being ruthless enough with these animals.

Sieg Heil, jerk! And I say this as a non Jew.

Sieg Heil Boutte! part 1
What a disgusting, lowdown piece of anti-Semitic trash you have written. Neither Goebbels nor Iran's mullahs could have done a better job writing such sick propaganda.

"It is aggressive against its neighbours, seeking territorial gains. It worries little about international law and such niceties. It possesses colossal conscripted armed forces and weaponry, which it flourishes at every turn. "

Gross distortion. It is Israel's neighbors who have repeatedly attacked it since 1948, pledging to drive all Jews into the sea. These same backward neighbors got spanked severely during their aggressions of 1967 and 1973 when Israel in its SELF DEFENSE conquered some Arab territory. Israel has given most of this territory back, as you very well know, for a simple peace treaty from one of its aggressive attackers (Egypt). Israel has given Gaza back to the animals calling themselves Palestinians. It continues to hold the West Bank and Golan Heights until the Palestinian and Syrian scumbags pledge peace. This is CONQUERED territory, not occupied. Israel has every right to hold territory from its attackers in its self defense. It is most of the world, in the person of a corrupt UN, that has flouted international law and made exceptions to same in Israel's case.


I haven't read it, so I'm curious...
...on which page does Jonah Goldberg define what the word "fascism" means?

Thanks for the link
Old Man. I just have one problem with it. These are goals stated by an anti-communist Representative, and not by the commies themselves. I agree though, that he was forseeing enough to see what was to come.

Johninoregon
You have identified the inherent problem I have with our current 2 party system. As they stand now they both want to get into my private life, but for different reasons. They both want more government, but for different reasons.

HOWEVER, it also seems to me that the "conservative" or "libertarian" point of view is a safer route to go in general. If you excise it of extreme religionism and extreme globalism, it does favor the individual WAY MORE than the "liberals" do. And I used to be a liberal and slowly but surely I have seen how readily they will strip us of most of our basic individuality just to promote things like "environmentalism" and "tolerance".

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a pro-choice kind of gal. But I'm also pro-2nd Amendment. I'm kind of a classical liberal, a la Tammy Bruce.

Caught up into wordy arguments
Is the only way simple facts get distorted into choosing sides, and have allowed the two party system to divide and control the centralization of power.

Once anathema to the American people.

We have LOST Liberty Americans once enjoyed.
We have lost it to the centralization of all power located in Washington DC.

This is NOT the way this country was Founded.
The States were all Independent Republics, and all politics localized.

The States created the Federal Government to take care of VERY SPECIFIC AREAS.
This is what we no longer have, but instead have the created limited power of Federal Government the source of all power.

Not any different than the central powers of Communist, Nazi, Fascist or Royal Governments.
We have given up our SELF Government to Statism.

It was ONLY possible since the passage of the 16th Amendment.
Why do we ignore the source of all our problems in America today that comes from this change to how government controls money?
With the printing press instead of the Mint, they have UNLIMITED POWER TO EXPAND, AND HAVE DONE SO.

Money is the power that enables the overthrow of the self government Americans once enjoyed.

ladisney
"For a very good background read Russell Kirk’s “Rights and Duties.” “Liberal Fascism” sounds like a good book as well but I haven’t read it yet. 'Three New Deals' by Wolfgang Schivelbusch persuasively made much the same argument."

I like Kirk, though he was less an Individualist and more a Traditionalist. The Schivelbusch book was reviewed by David Boaz in "Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt: What FDR had in common with the other charismatic collectivists of the 30s" last October @ http://www.reason.com/news/show/122026.html .

Regarding "no problem here."
A comment referred to the difference between those addressing problems they see and Republicans or conservatives saying "leave us alone."

That is only partially true. They want the federal government to stay out of social issues. Most do want the problems addressed but at the state and local level and differently in each state so the solutions can be fine tuned by the people in each state to the specific causes of the problems we face.

Just keep the federal government out of social and moral issues as our founders intended except for those very few things given the Federal government to cover.

That is the great myth of the left. They claim the right doesn't want to address problems but, they do. They just want to let each city, county and state do it, not have them forced into "one policy" from the national level.

Link to Communist goals
http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Just talk to those who lived it

Why do lefties, who loved, and still love Communism, still say that Fascism is somehow a right-wing thing? Hitler was a Socialist. Germans get a laugh when you lefty jerks insist that to be a Nazi is to be right-wing.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, a JFK adviser, has written about how close Communism and Fascism are, on the Political spectrum.

Why do you still say that Fascism is somehow a right-wing thing? Hitler and Mussolini were Socialist.

I have visited Germany a lot (my wife had a lot of cousins in Germany, many were teachers and many lived and fought in WWII). Everyone I talked to, teachers, former military and all, get a laugh when you lefties insist that to be a Nazi is to be right wing. They lived it, so have a better idea than you do.

The lefties who love and who loved Stalin and Communism and the 150,000,000 people they killed, didn’t like Hitler’s claim of left wing politics. So they invented the myth that Nazi’s were right wing, so they could continue praising left wing murder, and blame other things on Hitler.

This doesn’t tell enough detail, but just talk to the people who lived through it, and you get a different story than from a sickly academic plug hole in this country.

Effects of Different Fascist Governments
Does Goldberg talk about the actual results of each of these government philosophies? One important characteristic of any philosophy, religion or faith in God is its effect on mankind and the world in general.

In every instance where a fascist government has ruled (be it communist, liberal, Nazi or socialist), the result has been disastrous to mankind. In every instance where conservative governments have ruled, the result has been very positive to mankind.

The more Christian (as defined by Christ not the ancient popes) a government, the better the results for mankind.

This is real history.

Pot and Kettle
"Hillary Clinton hopes "to insert the state deep into family life," an essential step of the totalitarian project."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Stop and think for a moment. Which side in the American political debate keeps up a constant drumbeat about "family values" and wants to let the state deny individuals the right to make certain kinds of personal choices based on the "family values" agenda of a particular religious constituency?.

i forgot something
"This is a great description of the Democrat party. Abortions, fighting against school choice (vouchers), universal health care (no choice), global warming, higher taxes and more nanny state, to list a few."

i forgot: homosexual marriage

NSDAP
Gunny G,

NSDAP=Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP).
In English=National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Semper Fi,

WMR

NSDAP
Gunny G,

NSDAP=Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP).
In English=National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Semper Fi,

WMR

Dan Flynn
Dan Flynn covered this in his excellent book about leftists and why they hate America. He goes through the rise of totalitarians in colleges (surprise) in Europe.

It's a great read. It's at Amazon.

He also wrote another book called "Intellectual Morons". Something to think about before you shell out $40k a year to have your kid's mind poisoned.

Old Man
That needs a reference. Where was it said? To Who? Can you provide a link.

Deconstructing the Dems
OK, lets take a look at public positions of the parties versus the list of characteristics of Facism as stated by Prof. Paxton.

1. obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood - This is the primary constituency of the left and if you read the Move-on blogs, their primary thought. Conservative positions tend to be "everything is ok, leave us alone."

2. compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. - NOW, Rainbow Push, Rainbow Coalition, the economic radicals, ecoterrorists. Redemptive violence? Take a look at conservative speakers on campus. For Republicans, the closest you can come is the moral majority types... No riots, no violence, just discussion and concentration on electing people who they agree with.

3. Facism is a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions - Global Warming and about a dozen other orthodoxies. Again Reps tend to be Polyanna's. "No problem here".

4. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits - See 2

5. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts - Use judges for abortion, gay marriage, elimination of death penalty. Listen to Ruth Ginzburg talk about what is right and wrong versus what is constitutional or not.

6. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint. See riots on campus. See G-6 battles. See the current civil rights and gay rights movements.

7. fear of foreign `contamination. - There you got me. That sounds like Republicans.

goals of socialism cont.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture -- education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etcetera.
==================
How they doing?

In 1963
In 1963, Rep. Herlong from Fla. delivered the 45 goals of communism (radical socialism)to Congress. The Am. Socialist party hated the communists but, their goals were the same but, different in how they achieved them using "radical democracy" according to their website.

Look at their goals as read by Herlong and then see if they have accomplished any.

Quote:
15. Capture one, or both, of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.


Two mistakes in the discussion...
Don't confuse "conservative" with "neoconservative". They are not the same. George W. Bush is rightly called a "neoconservative", though most of the people who call him that have no idea what it means. My understanding (challenge it if you like) is that a neoconservative has traditional, "conservative" social views, but socialist government leanings. That matches the current president and many current Republicans. Real political conservatives want no more government than the U.S. Constitution outlines, and maybe less, since some of the amendments have broken the system (popular election of senators, for instance). That's why conservatives and libertarians (the true "liberals" of the U.S. today) have gotten along so well since the days of Reagan. Both groups want less federal government than we currently have.

Also, some here have suggested that economic policies and political policies can be separated and should not be confused. This is utter nonsense. Communism and Socialism are economic policies, but they require political totalitarianism to keep the masses from accumulating personal property. When a person goes to work and gets nothing for their effort, they generally reject collectivism. That's why the economic system must be paired with a complimentary political system.

The whole point is this
It seems that the point of this review and of Mr. Goldberg's book is to take a fresh look at the term "fascism" and give a more meaningful definition of it. Personally, I think it is worth at least considering the origins of fascism and to put it where it truly belongs...on the left side of the political aisle. Fascism is just the logical long term conclusion of the types of policies that liberals implement at every opportunity.

And as for reading a NYT review of the book, I will pass. The NYT is generally not very honest in its reviews of works done by conservative authors, and in fact will attack them in any way possible to discourage people from reading them. I don't trust their news coverage, and I surely don't trust their reviews of books that do not match their particular political ideology.

Piples article almost complete...
the list lacks republican contribution to statism:

For one, the list of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, could not be complete without the likes of Abraham Lincoln....fascists of fascists.....well my nod goes to Wilson as the worst, but Lincoln is close behind.

Lincoln single handedly created the imperial presidency by denying the secession rights of the states....the last check and balance against centralized government. He also suspended habeas corpus to thousands who opposed his war of aggression having a US congressman actually deported.

And I agree with talent scout that it was the introduction of Wilson's monetary policies that put the lock on the door as to big centralized federal government......no looking back after that.

But the glaring missing link in this article is the connection to neoconservatism....I guess its hard for neocons to look at themselves in the mirror and realize who they are.

Pipes writes:
"In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.".

This today is more a definition of libertarianism. Name one presidential candidate from either party (besides Ron Paul) who really believes this.

The meaning of "conservative"
"If you were to substitute 'classical liberalism' for 'conservatism' in that phrase, you might be closer to political reality."

...or "right-libertarianism." Indeed. Laws against private consensual sexual behavior do not "leave people alone." Nor do laws regulating marriage. Nor do laws about the private use of psychoactive drugs. Yet these laws are generally favored by conservatives--at least, most of those in government.

I've heard that Goldberg's book deals with some of those issues, so I'm not singling him out for criticism here. Still, the idea that conservatism is about individual rights, freedom, etc., is mostly dead, and it's simply not accurate to present it as the converse of "fascism," however defined.


lonestarblues
You are on target. The great liberal ideas are capitalism, private property, rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right of the common man to be armed and a representative democracy. It was the liberal British Whigs who championed these ideals three centuries ago and our liberal founding fathers who made them the bedrock of our constitution.

It’s odd that today’s “liberals” are engaged in an assault on the very things that define a classical liberal. In a classical sense modern “conservatives” are the more liberal and are only conservative in that they are defending and conserving classical liberalism.

For a very good background read Russell Kirk’s “Rights and Duties.” “Liberal Fascism” sounds like a good book as well but I haven’t read it yet. “Three New Deals” by Wolfgang Schivelbusch persuasively made much the same argument.

fascism
Daniel Pipes states: 'A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." '

This is a great description of the Democrat party. Abortions, fighting against school choice (vouchers), universal health care (no choice), global warming, higher taxes and more nanny state, to list a few.

proud Lib
"I was young enough during WWII that I didn't really understand Nazism, totalitarianism or communism,"
You obviously still don't understand

Everyonesfacts
No, I was pulling a Rush Limbaugh. He was among the first to take liberal terminology and turn them into conservative speak. I just like to get a back atcha with conservative speak.

Thank you
Mr. Pipes, for telling it like it is!!

Don'tcha just love the kooky commies?
Kooky commie game plan:

Step 1: Lie about history. Get away with the lies because the evidence proving your lies is not available to the public.
Step 2: Continue to lie for years and years.
Step 3: When the evidence finally does come out that you've been lying for decades, claim the reportage of the lies you've been telling, and CONTINUE to tell is "old news".

The fact that fascism is really a leftist ideology held near and dear by the likes of the "beloved" Klinton Klux Klan and the rest of the kooky commies is but one good example of this.

For another perfect example of this strategy, read the book "Blacklisted by History", a total deconstruction of the lies told by left wing, America-hating, shills about the great American hero, Senator Joe McCarthy.

The FACT of the matter is that kooky commies KNOW they can NEVER win if the truth is ever told.

Not fair to blame NCLB on cons.
No CHild was a Kennedy brainchild Bush II took up in the mistaken idea he'd get good NYTimes coverage. Also, the so-called immigration reform of 1986 tht Reagan accepted from Kennedy. When will Rep.'s learn nothing good comes from that poison tree?

Bush I fell for the same game when he said, "Read my lips. No new taxes," and then let himself be convinced by Dems. that we needed new taxes. Did he think Dan Rather would like him more?

Dole fell into the same trap with the 1992 Disabilities Act which has spawned an entire industry of disab. checkers who wander from private bus. to private bus. measureing how far toilet paper niches are from toilets and suing if there's an 1/16th of an inch off. Plus countless suits like the one against FedEx that would not hire a driver blind in one eye.

McCain launched himself into the same hole with Feingold with so-called campaign finance reform which besmirches the first amend. and gave rise to 527s of the Daily Krap and movealong.org ilk.

When cons. are really cons. and stop trying to appease the ed. pages of the Wash. Post, they espouse limited gov't, lower taxes, free trade, personal responibility, and market ec.'s.

Proud Liberal
Usually so good.

But elitist is the insult of the Con.
Don't tell me you're actually a Con in Lib Moniker.

Please don't tell me that.

Need to look at differences too...
I suppose leftism and fascism seem similar if you only look at similarities, but a proper comparison requires examining the differences too. For example:

"[Fascism] is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of 'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.' Fascism's message boils down to 'Enough talk, more action!'"

This is exactly what leftism *doesn't* favor, especially the "nothing against the State" bit. The far-leftists who are calling for the impeachment of President Bush, the dismantling of the School of the Americas, etc., are most certainly against the state.

And I don't think ANYONE sees the modern Democrat Party as the party of action. It's more like "More talk, less action," as their view on Iran shows.

"In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone."

Conservatism may *call* for these principles, but of course in practice you get Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Iraq, and corporate bailouts. It hardly leaves citizens alone.

Overall, it sounds like Goldberg has reinvented the wheel to a certain extent. If you've ever taken the Political Compass test that's floating around the web, you know that it's useful to think of a second dimension to politics, the authoritarian vs. libertarian dimension, to go along with the usual left-right dimension. Goldberg seems to have made the mistake of throwing out the left-right axis and transferring its labels to the authoritarian-libertarian axis. It would be hard for him to explain, say, Gandhi vs. Friedman. And then there's Chomsky, who is supposedly an anarcho-something (a silly philosophy, but not statist.)

I'll take a look through the book in case my secondhand impression is wrong, but it hardly sounds like the work of a "major political thinker."

Kudos
Bravo Mr. Goldberg.
Bravo Professor Pipes.

U.S. Conservatism
In your article you say:

"In contrast, CONSERVATISM calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone."

There is good argument that the description of U.S. "Conservatism," which often seems bent on using the mechanisms of governments (at all levels)to achieve certain ends, including those that direct human conduct, is not accurate. While they may not be totalitarian, they can be intrusive, and freedom-limiting.

If you were to substitute "classical liberalism" for "conservatism" in that phrase, you might be closer to political reality.

Those commenting here and elsewhere in defense of what in the U.S. is now called "Liberalism" should consider the means that are necessary and employed to achieve its ends, and the effects of those means on human interactions, individual liberty, as well as on the political economy.

R. Richard Schweitzer
s24rrs@aol.com


A Rose by Any Other Name...
Totalitarianism is the generic concept embracing Facism, Communism and a wild variety of "isms".

On the American scene, Neoconservatism, is the active player that could easily adopt the moniker, Neoliberalism. The effect is the same in any case and the Straussian elite care little for the name, provided they have the whip-hand.

Most in both parties don't know the patron saint of the Neocons, Leo Strauss, or his crafty, esoteric post-modern political philosophy that is at the heart of Neoconservatism. Nor do they know that as far as the Neocons are concerned their deception works equally well in the colors of both the left and right.

Their game: poltical dominance through the "noble lie" that manipulates the well-intended, the rabble, and those who think they have IQ's over 200.

These serpentine eltists took an unexpected kick in the head in Iowa and are now looking for someone to bite. Just so long as the POTUS is someone they can manipulate, they could care less -- whether it is Huckabee or Edwards, Clinton or Giuliani.

They have been playing both parties like a harp for decades to the point where the core of each party is looking more and more the same.

In fact, they are simply the latest influential incarnation of totalitarianism that has, leach-like, fastened onto the left-right notion and the party polarization in this country for their purposes. Little wonder that the GOP and Democratic party are barely distinguishable. They love it when we play off against one another as libs or cons.

These efete elites are our greatest enemies, if we discount our own gullibility. Watch where our most esteemed political pundits move, and you'll see the pattern. Also, do a little looking into the patron saint of this clique and his following. It's an eye-opener!

Dog Judge
Errrr, I thought this was one of the most thought provoking columns in months.

And it isn't Goldberg puffing his work, it is a reader reporting on a good read. What is your problem?

stedes
"Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents."

If you're going to say that, then you ought to also say that Muslim states, which generally treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens, are also fascist.

Right?

And you won't object to those of us who use the word "Islamofascist," because their intent is to treat all non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Right?

Townhall Desperation?
I find an interesting trend at Townhall.com recently.

More and more columns along the line of, "I have the solution to America's problems, just read my book."

There is a tremendous amount of self-promotion going on here that doesn't appear to serve any purpose other than to sell books.

Are the columnists here so pressed to find something to write about that all they can do is go in this direction?

When are they actually going to start writing columns that SAY something?

Proud Liberal
So what you are saying is that definitions don't really matter. What matters is how you feel and that since Facism is bad, and oppression is bad, and George Bush is bad, and Fox News is bad, then they are all Facism.

Brilliant! Words do mean what you want them to!

Now that you've read the review
It is easy to see that the SAME BOOK could have
been written going from Republican administration
to Republican administration.

Again could be fun, but why skip over the Repubs?

buzzkat
My point is that Pipes and Goldberg are getting "intellectual" on us. I was young enough during WWII that I didn't really understand Nazism, totalitarianism or communism, but these concepts would grow in my mind as I grew older.

I think it would be quite a while before I could see both Russia and Germany as totalitarian states. The Europeans who had experienced either or both did put that together, but many of them did go off the deep end in identifying liberalism with totalitarianism. But this is still intellectualism.

What the purveyors of "liberalism is totalitarianism" miss is that actual people were struggling for better lives and were less interested in the intellectual foundations of a movement than in improving their own lives, which almost always meant challenging an existing class structure that had been established by nobility and clergy. The French Revolution was excessively bloody, but what Burke missed was that there were grievances and causes behind the revolution of the common people.

Do any of you read?
Stedes, Facism does not equal oppression. It equals government control. oppression is not good or desired, but it is not Facism.

From Prof. Paxton of Columbia U:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Facism is a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.

Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. (Knopf Publishing Group, 2005). ISBN 1-4000-4094-9



Read this review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.h tml

This is a polemic which might be fun to read but
not serious history.

Great! Write more, spread the word
Great everyone, keep writing and discussing this very point! Spread this little secret around so that people may learn. I’ve been trying to educate people for two decades about the “liberal” left who, in my opinion, are the most active forces leading the charge towards corrupt collectivism but, I would add a warning to the American right.
On your side there are those mostly through laziness, incompetence, cowardice and avarice who allow this slow agonizing slide towards our future slavery to an elite.
How do you recognize one of these types? It’s simple. If he preaches the forced redistribution of someone’s wealth to others, that you cannot speak your mind or live your own way and that we need more government to force the above then he is either actively leading corrupt collectivism, one of their followers hoping for an entitlement or simply an ignorant fool.

Facism is more than Socialism
Isn't facism and socialism two different things? Just becasue a facists state can be also be socialist, that doesn't make socialism facist dose it?

My understanding is this: Facism is not economics it is Political racism for the purpose of promoting a unified national identity.

A fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. It is usually accompained by persecution and denial of group of people.

Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

In reality, no single government is pure anything. Most have elements of several structures with one dominant structure). You can argue the US has some form of facisism in place. It is only a matter of degrees.

chollybygolly
Your post correlates with an observation I made long ago. That is that the political organization of a society is dependent on its economic organization. Also, few are able to keep the two segregated properly. The terms communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism describe the economic structure of a society. Liberalism, conservatism, and centrism describe the political spectrum. The source of confusion is that the two are inextricably linked to each other. It's very unlikely that a lib will support a capitalist anarchy(think Wild West days when the economy featured a high degree of self-sufficiency) or a conservative would dream of championing communism.

Proud Liberal
"The iconic picture is of a group of Nazi soldiers marching in lock-step with their legs swinging in unison. Fascism is indelibly linked with authoritarianism in the popular mind of that day."

The same iconic picture was in the minds of Americans after WW2 with the annual May Day goose stepping Red Army parades in Moscow's Red Square. What is Goldberg's/Pipes' "revisionism"? What is your point?

Goldberg & Pipes have "elitists" view
I was alive during WWII. I'm not sure that Goldberg and Pipes were. Fascism to the rank and file Americans meant lock-step authoritarianism. The iconic picture is of a group of Nazi soldiers marching in lock-step with their legs swinging in unison. Fascism is indelibly linked with authoritarianism in the popular mind of that day.

Goldberg and Pipes are "revisionists" from the point of view of people who actually lived through that period.

This is new?
I first became acquainted with the claim that fascism is leftist from Joshua Moravchik's "Heaven on Earth," so I don't know what all the fuss here is about. Moravchik pointed out that the socialist Mussolini, with the outbreak of WWI, couldn't deny that the workers were supporting their own governments rather than sticking up for their fellow workers in other countries. That forced him to modify his socialism so as to include nationalism.

In addition, he borrowed the idea that Italy, poor as it was compared with England, could be regarded in its entirety as part of the proletariat.

Fascism may have been a heresy of the left, but the main thing is that it didn't spring from the right. Its origins were leftist.

Pipes & Goldberg get it backwards
I'll offer one example. Black people in this country didn't want their equality and freedom because they are liberal, nor because equality, particularly, is a liberal idea. They wanted their equality because of how they felt about their lives and circumstances. Ideological liberals embraced blacks' desires and efforts to secure their equality, but, as in many other instances, ideological liberalism came second, after the desire and striving of a group for better lives. Liberalism didn't drive civil rights. Civil rights drove liberalism.

Liberalism is actually a collage that has been pieced together with groups whose primary striving was very personal, but the groups found that they have something in common, namely overturning the status quo which denies them equality or self-determination.

Words Mean Something
"To understand fascism in its full expression requires putting aside Stalin's misrepresentation of the term and also look beyond the Holocaust, and instead return to the period Goldberg terms the 'fascist moment,' roughly 1910-35."

Interesting considering the tail end of that period marks, according to George H. Nash, the beginnings of _The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America_, with the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A Hayek, Individualists who even up through Milton Friedman considered themselves not conservatives but liberals in the classical sense. It is that which inspires the "conservatism [that] calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone."

Odd how time changes the meanings of words we get so hung up on: liberalism, conservatism, fascism, socialism.

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."
--Reagan

impact
"One can only hope that closer scrutiny as time goes on will expose him and get enough people to see it."

I'm doing my part amigo. With his boneheaded spouting of, "we need to invade Pakistan..." I knew this empty-suit was off his nut. If he did not have Orca backing him, he'd be just another loser in the Senate sucking down a paycheck.

Eureka...
Finally my sentiments are being echoed outside of my four walls! However, to suggest modern Republicans are somehow the answer is way off base. In fact, I would suggest they are just as much liberal fascists as their counterparts in the Democrat party.

Meanwhile, I will continue to point out the concise definition of Fascism:
Give the people the pretense of holding private property, but regulate it to the point where the state has total control over it.

Now, if you still think this US of A is but a mere whisp of its original constitutional structure, you are either blind, in denial or part of the problem.

GunnyG
I know. I am in Illinois and had him pegged before he was elected to the Senate. I only used Hillary's "moment" as an example. Obama's undefined 'change' is toward much bigger government and redistribution. His charisma is the scariest part. All style and no substance, but the mindless follow him like they do rock stars. One can only hope that closer scrutiny as time goes on will expose him and get enough people to see it.


impact
Not to make too fine a point but check out what Obambi voted for on my blog and you WILL KNOW that he is far worse than Hitlery.

grubby
Even worse that Hitlery is Bark Obambi! He is the UBER LIBTURD!

SPOT ON!
NSDAP (Nazi)= Nat. Social DEMOCRATIC Aryan Party.

East Germans...Germany Democratic Rep.

North Korea. Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK

Liberals, Nazis, and Commies, the ENEMIES of FREEDOM lovers.

See the UBER LIB, Barack Obambi, on my blog. Bring a barf can.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/

Fascism, National Socialism, Communism
I think one can work from the most common dictionary definition of "socialism" as "government ownership of the means of production." "Ownership" is a collection of property rights," and "means of production" is property.

If the ownership is partial, as in Mussolini's corporative state, that is if the government shares rights to all property (your home, say) and acts as everyone's business partner, then the economic system is fascist. If ownership is total, what you have is communism. If ownership is partial for some businesses (Joe's Cigar Shop), but total for others (energy, medical care), it defines a national socialist system.

This allows us to separate the economic systems totalitarians use without confusing them with totalitarianism itself, all dictators being alike in that regard. Thus one could call Hillary Clinton a national socialist without calling her a Nazi, or Noam Chomsky a communist without designating him a Stalinist.

If one is looking for a definition of words like "fascist" that works better than "whatever I don't like," one might begin with the dictionary.

Stateism by any other name
Finally, someone on the front lines is making the point I've been arguing for at least two decades.

By definition, Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership with public control.

As a practical matter, it amounts to the same thing; stateism. The main difference is the more cynical aspect of fascism since, with private ownership, it gets to take credit for successes and pass blame for failure.

The definition of both isms has morphed into something broader, but they are the left and right horn of the same beast; statism and ultimately total dictatorship. They just get there by slightly different routes.

Look at Hillary's teary-eyed moment in the last couple of days. I a rare moment of sincerity, she claimed how much "she could do for America." Now isn't that something! I think she actually believes and has the delusion that if only she was in charge, we could finally have that utopia we should all long for.

My God, she's scary!.

What's even scarier is that so many can't see it.


Media
The media pushes that lie that fascism is a right wing monster. The History channel was pushing that revisionist history the other day. The classic propaganda tool,just put a label on anything you don't like. I don't think anybody does any backround reading any more. This article hits the nail right on the head.

saltydog
One nit to pick with your post, George Bush is no conservative.

You will
see a dictorial government after the socialist liberals give illegals the "right" to vote.
I believe these illegals have been planted in the states in a manner as to insure a socialist liberal victory for many yeares to come.
I would like to be proven wrong, but i don't think so.

"Don't Tax me Bro"
Ron Paul 2008.
The only one honest enough to even mentions the danger of domestic fascism.

Fascism is a domestic threat
When a president takes office. He swears to protect from enemies far and near.
GWB protected us from enemies far by becoming our enemy near. He pushed the country further into corporate, and collective fascism

Good one, Mr. Pipes - see also Wheeler
I would be inclined to reverse the order, as in:
"Leftism's Legacy: Fascism" - but no matter. It's about time that label got applied to the people to whom it logically belongs. Fascism is a variant of collectivism - like communism, racism, absolute Democracy (e.g. ancient Athens,) tribalism, socialism, welfare statism, eco-fascism, egalitarianism, etc. Collectivism's only logical antithesis is individualism; it is the GOP, not the Left, whose core principles are individualist.

There's an interesting article posted at Free Republic by a guy named Jack Wheeler titled "Democratic Fascism (Beware Hillary Clinton)" that's excellent in this context - though a little dated, as Wheeler makes an appeal for a Condi Rice candidacy.

The article categorizes the contemporary Left's morph from Marxian collectivism to its current mix as "Fabian fascism," after the tactical belief in incremental dismantling of liberty rather than sudden, radical action.

'Sound familiar?

Actually, I'm inclined to believe someone as rash and intellectually corrupt as a Clinton, Obama or Gore would likely attempt both incremental and radical action simultaneously if they had Democrat majorities in Congress to lead them to think they could get away with it.


Secondly, I believe collectivists should never be given the unwarranted compliment of being called "liberals."

"Liberal" is derived from the same root as "liberty," therefore should denote "an advocate of liberty."

Today's "liberals" are advocates of the precise, polar opposite of liberty: the omnipotent state and the subordination of the individual to the collective.

To paraphrase Vassar/Brandeis philosopher David Kelley: "If the people who are calling themselves 'liberal' are finished with the word, we'd like it back."

I agree fully.

Dictators
Only differ in personalities.
Any system that gives control of the State into the hands of one man or a group of men hardly matters what you call it.

If its called Communism, Fascism, Nazism or Royalty.
When people refuse to govern themselves, they empower the State.
America began giving up self government with the unconstitutional 16th Amendment that handed to private businessmen the control over the economy and the value of money.
Leaving the Foundations of the US Constitution this power was given to Congress only.

This caused the beginning of the partnership of business and government that brings about fascism, as we now have in America.

Financial fascism with all aspects of business controlled by huge corporations that select our politicians and laws.

Could never have happened without the "passage" of the 16th Amendment.

No way the government could have grown into the monstrosity it is today without the paper fiat money the private banking cartel owns and operates to their own riches.

Vindication!!!
I've been telling liberal co-workers for years that Fascism was a leftist idealogoy and they acted like I had a mental illness (hmmm..... didn't Stalin send those who didn't "think right" to mental institutions?)

Now I know what to get people for birthday and Christmas presents.

SaltyDog
To the extent the gov't is trying to determine the outcome, yes, we already have quite the facsist state. And it is everywhere, from dictating what we must do in order to drive (helmets, seat belts, no smoking in front of kids, etc.) to light bulbs or gallons in a flush, advocated and implemented by the great civil libertarian liberals - how's that for a horrible joke.

We've called it the nanny state so far (we have feminized fascism according to Goldberg) but it could take on a very radical and frightening character under a madam Hitlery DeFarge.

Benito was smarter than Marx
Marxist policy destroys incentive, slowly causing economic collapse because men tend to act in self interest. We make very poor bees. Fascism leaves intact mans tendency toward greed by leaving the means of production in private hands, thus leaving incentive intact. The problem with this approach is the loss of liberty.

The flaw in the slaw in this argument is the fascist trend originates only from the left. Our overseeing lords recently demanded what kind of autos can be sold in America. Micro-management of the auto industry is a fascist act. Passed by a liberal legislature and signed by a (so called) conservative president. Fascism anyone? It appears to me we are already there!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.