Jon Stewart Rips Jonah Goldberg A New One
firstquartermoon
Posts: 103
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg arguing that, contrary to conventional wisdom, fascist movements were and are left-wing.
Publishers Weekly says the "provocative and well-researched" book "probes modern liberalism’s spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics." PW further says that the book is "seriously argued—and funny."[1] David Neiwert, writing in The American Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak."[2]
Goldberg has told interviewers that the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932."[3][4] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism[4] as an "enlightened Nazism."[5]
The book was promoted on The Daily Show on January 16th, 2008; where Jon Stewart criticized the book, calling them "medial" and "overbearing."
Jan. 11, 2008 | Jonah Goldberg is not a popular man among liberals. The son of Lucianne Goldberg, the literary agent who played a pivotal role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he already had that as a strike against him when he began his career as a conservative political commentator in the late 1990s. A writer and blogger for the National Review and a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, he's now a frequent target for the mockery of liberal bloggers.
But nothing has inspired the ire of liberals quite like Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." There was the provocative cover, which adds a Hitler mustache to the familiar yellow smiley-face icon. Then there was the book's ever-changing subtitle. Originally "The Totalitarian Temptation From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton," it became "The Totalitarian Temptation From Hegel to Whole Foods," before landing on bookstore shelves in its current form.
In the book, Goldberg attempts to convince readers that six decades of conventional wisdom that have placed Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and fascism on the right side of the ideological spectrum are wrong, and that fascism is really a phenomenon of the left. Goldberg also attributes fascist rhetoric and tactics to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and describes the New Deal's descendants, modern American liberals, as carriers of this liberal-fascist DNA. In a sense, "We're All Fascists Now," as Goldberg puts it in one of his chapter titles. Salon spoke with Goldberg by phone.
What's the book about?
It's a revisionist history. It's an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II. There's this idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart.
For 60 years most historians have been putting fascism on the right, or conservative, side of the political spectrum. What are you able to see that they weren't?
There are a lot of historians who get fascism basically right. There are a lot of historians who don't. I think the Marxists have been part and parcel of a basic propaganda campaign for a very long time, but there are plenty of historians who understand what fascism was and are actually quite honest about it.
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is almost no prominent fascist leader -- starting with Mussolini and Hitler -- who if you actually went about and looked at their economic programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you wouldn't locate most if not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context.
You write about how historians have had difficulty defining fascism. How did you come up with the definition of fascism that you use in the book?
Well, yeah, it's very hard to come up with a definition of fascism. And one of the things that I've found that was kind of amazing in this process, especially since the book has come out, is how people can't let go of fascism as a morally loaded term for evil. [George] Orwell says fascism has come to mean anything not desirable as early as 1946, and it is amazing how it is so ingrained in our political psychology to see "fascist" basically just as a code word for "evil."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/
Publishers Weekly says the "provocative and well-researched" book "probes modern liberalism’s spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics." PW further says that the book is "seriously argued—and funny."[1] David Neiwert, writing in The American Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak."[2]
Goldberg has told interviewers that the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932."[3][4] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism[4] as an "enlightened Nazism."[5]
The book was promoted on The Daily Show on January 16th, 2008; where Jon Stewart criticized the book, calling them "medial" and "overbearing."
Jan. 11, 2008 | Jonah Goldberg is not a popular man among liberals. The son of Lucianne Goldberg, the literary agent who played a pivotal role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he already had that as a strike against him when he began his career as a conservative political commentator in the late 1990s. A writer and blogger for the National Review and a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, he's now a frequent target for the mockery of liberal bloggers.
But nothing has inspired the ire of liberals quite like Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." There was the provocative cover, which adds a Hitler mustache to the familiar yellow smiley-face icon. Then there was the book's ever-changing subtitle. Originally "The Totalitarian Temptation From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton," it became "The Totalitarian Temptation From Hegel to Whole Foods," before landing on bookstore shelves in its current form.
In the book, Goldberg attempts to convince readers that six decades of conventional wisdom that have placed Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and fascism on the right side of the ideological spectrum are wrong, and that fascism is really a phenomenon of the left. Goldberg also attributes fascist rhetoric and tactics to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and describes the New Deal's descendants, modern American liberals, as carriers of this liberal-fascist DNA. In a sense, "We're All Fascists Now," as Goldberg puts it in one of his chapter titles. Salon spoke with Goldberg by phone.
What's the book about?
It's a revisionist history. It's an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II. There's this idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart.
For 60 years most historians have been putting fascism on the right, or conservative, side of the political spectrum. What are you able to see that they weren't?
There are a lot of historians who get fascism basically right. There are a lot of historians who don't. I think the Marxists have been part and parcel of a basic propaganda campaign for a very long time, but there are plenty of historians who understand what fascism was and are actually quite honest about it.
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is almost no prominent fascist leader -- starting with Mussolini and Hitler -- who if you actually went about and looked at their economic programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you wouldn't locate most if not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context.
You write about how historians have had difficulty defining fascism. How did you come up with the definition of fascism that you use in the book?
Well, yeah, it's very hard to come up with a definition of fascism. And one of the things that I've found that was kind of amazing in this process, especially since the book has come out, is how people can't let go of fascism as a morally loaded term for evil. [George] Orwell says fascism has come to mean anything not desirable as early as 1946, and it is amazing how it is so ingrained in our political psychology to see "fascist" basically just as a code word for "evil."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But, he is really dodging the whole time, jumping from sweeping to specifics, depending on what question was thrown at him. And his case is that Nazism is the predecessor of modern american "liberalism", however, he doesn't say that really. He just had the Hitler moustache on the cover and everything. And he quotes Mussolini several times, but whenever other quotes are used, we must remember Mussolini was a pragmatist. :rolleyes:
What point he has, liberal-bashing aside, is that what he views as "liberalism" (which I would label as "some liberals") may be forcing us to "the good life" whether we like it or not. I will concede a point there in regards to some groups.
But for his definition of fascism, it is really lacking. What he is saying is that if you take away the conservative trappings of fascism, you're left with liberalism. Well, duh. That doesnt mean that fascism = liberalism for all purposes. This is where he gets sweeping, after nitpicking details of fascism a moment before. Fascism is extreme nationalism, coupled with authoritarian reactionary conservative social policies, coupled with a big state. He poo-poos the first 2 and blows up the 3rd.
To me, he comes across as a smarty-pants blogger who had a neat idea, and puts on his academic face to sell it and almost pulls it off. But as he talks around himself, it becomes less and less clear how exactly fascism can be truthfully coupled with liberalism, that is, without making fascism fit with just about anhything. He essentially says that activism = fascism. In other words, by acting on what you believe is right you're being a fascist. So what was it all about again? Wouldn't Jesus be a big fat fascist as well?
There, that's my 2 cents on the matter.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Goldberg is certainly not the first to try to send the message that modern Western liberalism is not necessarily the outgrowth of classical liberalism. I certainly agree that modern liberalism shares more in common with Stalin than it does with Locke, but to apply the term "facist" to it as a blanket statement is most certainly an overstatement.
Having to pay taxes though you don't want it is not really comparable to living under a stalinian regime.
They only had a short time frame in which to air. There was also a heck of a lot of swearing which needed to be *bleeped*. I would bet we will see the full interview on youtube (that was a joke) er... posted on Comedy Channel Websit eventually given the amount of hype it has been getting.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
as jon prefaced at the beginning of the segment, the interview went on for 18 minutes so they had edit down to 6......now as to what they edited out, well....:)
Absolutely. I'm not claiming that Nancy Pelosi is rounding up the bourgeoisie and executing them in the gutters.
What I am saying is that the underlying philosophy of modern liberalism is now largely based on the use of measures of violence to achieve a desired social end. That, in itself, is something traditionally associated with facism. Modern conservatism in America is also largely based on that concept -- the desired ends are just different.
This is silly. No one is denying the horrors of Stalin or Hitler or Mussolini. What I'm getting at is that the underlying ideologies of those individuals did not exist in any kind of vacuum. The ideology of each represents the outgrowth of flawed philosophies regarding human rights, the human condition, and the relationships between man and state.
It's certainly not the same - no where close. But it is certainly comparable, as are all the other means used to violate individual liberty, the concept that defined classical liberalism.
I guess I'm foolishly holding The Daily Show to some kind of journalistic standard here, but interviews do not run themselves. Stewart knows he has a 30 minute show, and I find it a bit disengenuous to say "oh, this interview ran for 18 minutes, so now I'm going to only show 6 minutes of it."
I'm certainly not claiming that there was any nefarious motive to the editing. Just seemed a bit low-rent and questionable.
just judging by what was shown, it seemed jon just got carried away with this guy....if i remember correctly, it's happened before but in the other instance they showed it in two parts...but yeah, this is an entertainment show not hard journalism....:)
i'm just old enough to remember when the "media" consisted of actual journalists instead of vapid talking hairdoos....:D