Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freedomís Dictators History shows liberalism shares much with fascism.
Victor Davis Hanson on The Web ^ | 01-10-2008 | Bruce Thornton

Posted on 01/11/2008 9:19:00 AM PST by HKMk23

The incoherence of our political discourse results in part from sheer ignorance of political philosophy and its history.

-- snip --

Liberal Fascism goes a long way to providing that lost history and recovering the true origins and meanings of our political principles and ideals. Goldberg, a syndicated columnist and editor at the National Review, modestly calls himself a journalist. But he has in fact written a well-documented, fast-paced history of modern politics and political philosophy.

(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fascism; liberalism
A review of Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism. The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods (Doubleday, 2008, 496 pp.)

This looks like another work that should be added to the "Patriot's Required Reading" list.

1 posted on 01/11/2008 9:19:03 AM PST by HKMk23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

bttt


2 posted on 01/11/2008 9:20:09 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Ping to the Keeper of the FR Bibliophile ping list.


3 posted on 01/11/2008 9:23:40 AM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23; Xenalyte

ping


4 posted on 01/11/2008 9:28:03 AM PST by glide625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glide625

I just listened to the Dennis Preager interview. I like the idea, but MSM will never let this one out. Cowards.


5 posted on 01/11/2008 9:46:41 AM PST by benjamin032
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: benjamin032

Read the NAZI Party’s 25 Point Plan.


6 posted on 01/11/2008 9:50:42 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
I have only respect for Jonah Goldberg and Victor Davis Hansen, however:
"Given that 'fascist' is the most abused term in the political lexicon..."
This is not a given. The most abused term is "liberal". The very phrase "liberal fascism" is an oxymoron.

The thesis is absolutely correct. The contemporary Left is very much in the tradition of communism, Naziism, and fascism. It champions the power of the state--sometimes, though not always, in preference to what it considers "a higher morality" or "social justice" but which is, in fact, an irrational, sloppy preference for one trendy thing over another--and the abolition of individual liberty.

Furthermore:

"And like fascism and communism, progressivism was (and still is) totalitarian, not in the lurid sense of gulags and concentration camps..."
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Leftists and their often lurid ideology would not, if possible, result in gulags and concentration campls. In fact, there is every reason to assume that they would.
7 posted on 01/11/2008 9:54:01 AM PST by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

1) Elect Hillary
2) If 1 falls through, elect Obama


8 posted on 01/11/2008 9:55:00 AM PST by benjamin032
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
I’m with you on the misuse of “liberal”; it’s another desecration of English along the same lines as the misfortune that befell “gay”.

Do note, though, that it wasn't VDH who authored this review.

9 posted on 01/11/2008 10:10:46 AM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
"There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Leftists and their often lurid ideology would not, if possible, result in gulags and concentration campls. In fact, there is every reason to assume that they would."

I think the earliest concentration camps were setup by the British. And what does the author think the American Indian reservations were?

Liberalism began meaning individual rights and freedom from government interference - it's a Spanish word BTW. The left redefined the word to their benefit in order to glom onto a legacy of achievement that is not theirs.

Modern leftist ideologies are almost all historicist philosophies - philosophies that posit history as a process or journey. If liberalism was good when it was combating monarchy, slavery, mercantilism, etc., then progressivism has to be deprived from it somehow in order to be legitimate. So they just steal the name.

10 posted on 01/11/2008 10:13:58 AM PST by antinomian (Show me a robber baron and I'll show you a pocket full of senators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

The review is EXCELLENT, and I urge anyone to read the whole thing. Just click on the link.
I will be buying the book also, even though I have long ago understood what Goldberg is saying. I am sure that I can profit from his superior and profession manner of expression.


11 posted on 01/11/2008 10:46:56 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
"This is not a given. The most abused term is "liberal". The very phrase "liberal fascism" is an oxymoron."

I couldn't say which of the two terms are more frequently misused but I do agree that they are.

I've had a two year running argument with a friend who's fond of using "liberal fascist." I think it's an oxymoron too, but I have to say that the modern Democrat party is much better described as fascist than liberal, but still closer to communist than fascist.

12 posted on 01/11/2008 10:47:47 AM PST by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
I think the earliest concentration camps were setup by the British.

I would say that the ancient Egyptians have the Brits beat by several centuries. Doubt me? Ask a Jew.

As for the comparison between an American Indian reservation, and a gulag or concentration camp -- that's quite a stretch. I get the thrust of the comparison, but the differences in both kind, and degree are too great to allow a credible equivalence.

13 posted on 01/11/2008 10:49:12 AM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

Classic liberalism was about creating equality of opportunity.

Modern liberalism is about using the force of the state to bring about equality of outcome.


14 posted on 01/11/2008 10:52:02 AM PST by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

Dumb debate. It accepts the leftist idea that fascism was worse than communism, the latter certainly being influential on the left.


15 posted on 01/11/2008 10:54:13 AM PST by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
"I would say that the ancient Egyptians have the Brits beat by several centuries. Doubt me? Ask a Jew.

Antinomian is correct in that the British originated the term "Concentration Camp" in reference to the camps they kept the families of the Kommandos the fought in the Boer War.

16 posted on 01/11/2008 10:54:45 AM PST by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
It accepts the leftist idea that fascism was worse than communism...

To my mind, fascism IS worse than communism.

Communism at least accepts participation in the body of the whole by the individual, with a view to the individual's contributing "according to his means" to the collective "according to [it's] needs". It is, if idealized, the mutual rule of all by all for the benefit of all. Communism hinges upon altrusim, which requires the active denial of gratification of human nature, which is why it has never been implemented in its ideal form, and never will be.

Fascism, by stark contrast, demotes BOTH the individual AND collective humanity in deference to the superiority of an all-powerful State; embodied in a class of ruling elites. It is, if idealized, the absolute control of all by few for the benefit of all. Fascism indulges the human lust for power, which invites the active gratification of human nature.

Although the practical outworking of communism results in almost exactly the same thing as when fascism is implemented -- the control of all by few for the ostensible benefit of all, but the actual benefit of the few -- the fact remains that between the two distinct philosophies of governance, fascism is far and away the more Statist and totalitarian in its idealized form.

All of that stated, leftism inclines FAR more to control by a few over the many than to control by many over the many. The liberal default is to consider the mass of people as incapable of doing things on their own; we're not self-sufficeint enough to be left to our own devices, we individuals cannot be trusted to act in concert with the needs of a well-ordered society, we therefore NEED our Liberal elites to do our thinking for us, and to embody those correct thoughts in the Laws of the State so as to aid us in successfully governing our own squalid lives. And, despite the rampant liberal talk of peace, and tolerance, dare you even speak -- much less act -- at crossed purposes with their correct thinking, you will discover the raw incarnation of the totalitarian ideal that is fascism.

17 posted on 01/11/2008 11:51:52 AM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VR-21

Thanks for that technical detail; I’ve not thoroughly studied British history.

Do you also know where they got the inspiration for their camps?


18 posted on 01/11/2008 12:20:37 PM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
There's actually been some debate about the origin of the term, with some saying that the US coined it in the Spanish American War. Most accounts I've read go with the Boer War version and for that reason I tend to believe it.

I don't know if it qualifies as "inspiration" but the rationale for the confinement of the families of the Kommandoes (Dutch farmers mostly, who were engaged in guerilla warfare against the British army) was to prevent any material support to the Kommandoes by family members. Some say that they also served as hostages but I've never found anything to support that.

I take you at your word about the Egyptians, and I'm sure that such things have occurred many times in history. I don't think Antinomians comparison to Indian Reservations is apt, but I do think that the camps where we confined the Nisei Japanese in this country would be.

Have a good weekend.

19 posted on 01/11/2008 12:42:02 PM PST by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
"I would say that the ancient Egyptians have the Brits beat by several centuries. Doubt me? Ask a Jew."

But the ancient Egyptians never claimed to be liberal, which was the point I was replying to.

As for the comparison between an American Indian reservation, and a gulag or concentration camp -- that's quite a stretch. I get the thrust of the comparison, but the differences in both kind, and degree are too great to allow a credible equivalence.

Again, the point was that a "liberal" government set out to systematically destroy a civilization that got in the way of their plans. And the Indian reservations certainly were like the Soviet gulags. The reason the population numbers were different was because the demographics were different; but in both cases the objective was to eliminate huge numbers of inconvenient people. Do you think Sherman and Custer would have been squeamish if the number of Indians had been twenty million instead of three?

20 posted on 01/11/2008 12:54:53 PM PST by antinomian (Show me a robber baron and I'll show you a pocket full of senators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VR-21
I've driven by one of the former campsites at Manzanar, in the California high desert along Hwy 395, many times. It's a desolate little patch of seasonally hot or cold -- but always windy -- misery; almost certainly an unnecessary blot on our American honor.
21 posted on 01/11/2008 12:55:10 PM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

Read the whole review.........now on to the book!

Thanks


22 posted on 01/11/2008 1:00:36 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
But the ancient Egyptians never claimed to be liberal, which was the point I was replying to.

Got it. I was rather sidetracked with the reservation/gulag comparison, so didn't address your main point squarely.

Your argument that the left appropriating the term "liberal" as a means to ride the coattails of an unearned legacy is apt. I would observe that such propagandist relabeling lands "liberals" squarely in the cozy company of minds like Josepf Goebbels; a noted expert in making things seem unlike what they really were.

This practice allows the liberal cabal to comfortably pursue their ardent worship of indiscriminateness (cf. Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think", by Evan Sayet) by painting both the black and the white in a uniform shade that photographers know as "18% Grey".

The on-the-fly redefinition of terms caused by their misappropriation produces a lignustic flexibility that allows black to be white, and vice-versa. In such an environment, there is no superiority to "good", and there is no inferiority to "evil". Indeed, "evil" becomes the more preferred as it is only by comparison to "good" that "evil" is determined, evidencing that "evil" must have been all this time the victim of the repressive "good"; an historic wrong that the liberal mind is determined to set right.

...in both cases the objective was to eliminate huge numbers of inconvenient people.

This is the part of the reservation/gulag comparison that I'm struggling with. While it is certainly true that no great effort was made to ensure the survival and well-being of those herded onto the reservations, I don't have a source that conclusively demonstrates that the reservations were intended to be the last stop on the way to extinction of the tribal nations. Do you have such a source?

23 posted on 01/11/2008 1:29:23 PM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

ping


24 posted on 01/11/2008 4:14:26 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
I wrote about this over two years ago,


25 posted on 01/12/2008 10:41:39 AM PST by inpajamas (Modern liberalism is merely fascism without balls - http://skarbutts.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inpajamas; wintertime; stephenjohnbanker; antinomian; VR-21; Dumb_Ox; dfwgator; docbnj; ...

Yeah, I guess you DID write about this.

PING to all prior posters.

Substantive additional input. See link at post #25.


26 posted on 01/12/2008 8:53:50 PM PST by HKMk23 (AUT VINCERI AUT MORI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
I often ask people that hate Republicans if they know what NAZI stands for. They can't seem to get that national socialism means you lose your freedom to the state. The "people's car"(VW) is and example of the state designing a car. Nothing wrong with it, can be made a good car, but what happens when you are forced to buy only what the state requires? Do you really want a Yugo? An example just today in Drudge is California wanting to take over your thermostat in the house YOU pay for to save energy that YOU pay for. We can collectively agree to save energy, but when you come into my house and turn MY thermostat down when I want it up, that seems fascist to me. How about Britain wanting to harvest your organs even when you don't want them to?

Government is FORCE. Freedom is anarchy. Our Founders wanted a maximum of freedom because we were a Christian nation. Our laws were inadequate for anyone but Christians. As we move away from being Godly people, we lose our freedom and require more laws. Children are taught that being liberal is good and conservative is bad in school. The Nazi's were liberal socialists, the Communists were liberal socialists, conservatives want more personal freedom and consider government force should be at a minimum. Liberal socialists believe in force to get what they want and are responsible for more murder in the 20th century than all murders put together in the past.

It should frighten people that anybody, especially Obama or Clinton, should have complete control over their lives. Liberals are just conservatives that haven't grown up yet. In the past, maturity and age was respected. Today, young people somehow have been told they are smarter than people that have lived through most of the things the young people haven't even thought of. When I see an 18 year old protesting, I can't see anyone taking them seriously because they can't possibly understand what is at stake. They haven't lived long enough to have a clue.

27 posted on 01/12/2008 9:34:32 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson