[donaldscrankshaw] Donald: Review of Jonah Goldberg's *Liberal Fascism*

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Donald:
Review of Jonah Goldberg's *Liberal Fascism*
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1203563855.shtml


   IFRAME:
   [1]http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=backoftheenve-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0
   385511841&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=FFFFFF&bg1=FFFFFF
   &f=ifr

   Jonah Goldberg has set himself a difficult task. He wishes to show
   that fascism, far from being a right-wing phenomenon, is a
   quintessentially left-wing endeavor, deriving from the same
   progressive movement that gave rise to socialism and modern
   liberalism. This is difficult not because it's hard to do--there is no
   shortage of approving quotes about Mussolini from early-twentieth
   century American progressives, nor is it hard to trace fascism's
   poltical roots from socialism and pragmatism--but because conventional
   wisdom has defined fascism as right-wing, and most liberals will try
   to shout you down if you say otherwise. It shouldn't be hard: fascism
   has always been a revolutionary ideology, which by definition is
   un-conservative. The fact that American Conservatism is based on
   Classical Liberalism, the belief in individual liberties and property
   rights, both of which are antithetical to fascism (or any form of
   statism), should make his case a no-brainer. Nevertheless, he makes a
   thorough argument concerning the origins of fascism, presenting as its
   basis a national form of socialism, similar but opposed to the Marxist
   international socialism.
   One part I particularly enjoyed was his chapter on religion and
   fascism. His definition of fascism as a civil religion fits its
   origins neatly. Communism, after all, is an atheistic religion, and
   coming from a similar origin, it is no surprise that fascism is a
   civil religion with nationalism as its central component. Speaking of
   nationalism, Jonah also makes the case that nationalism and patriotism
   are not the same thing. Patriotism is a reverence for the institutions
   and ideals of a nation (although not without regard for its faults),
   whereas nationalism believes in the nation, or often, the race, even
   while trying to tear down the institutions and ideals. It does not
   have to do away with the original religion--although it often does--if
   it can subvert it. Jonah cites plenty of evidence of this, and has
   sufficient quotes to show that the argument that "Hitler was a
   Christian," which I've heard before, simply does not hold water.
   Consider, for example, these words of Hitler: "Christianity will
   disappear from Germany just as it has done in Russia... The German
   race has existed without Christianity for thousands of years... and
   will continue after Christianity has disappeared... We must get used
   to the teachings of blood and race."
   Or this campsong used by the Hitler Youth:
   We are the happy Hitler Youth;
   We have no need for Christian virtue;
   For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
   And our redeemer.
   No priest, no evil one
   Can keep us
   From feeling like Hitler's children.
   No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
   Away with incense and holy water pots.
   How then did fascism come to be thought of as right-wing? It
   essentially came from the Communist playbook. Communism and Fascism
   are largely opposed to each other (although not always: the German
   Communists originally saw Nazism as a stepping stone to true
   Communism), but it is the opposition of cousins with irreconcilible
   differences, not the opposition of antitheticals. So when the
   Communists were trying to paint Fascism in a negative light, despite
   the fact that it was doing many of the things the Communists said they
   were for, the Communists painted fascism as right wing, as the last
   gasp of the ruling class in an attempt to lure the people from the
   true way. As fascism fell from favor at the end of the Second World
   War, Communists took to calling everyone they disagreed with fascist.
   And since Communism remained largely in favor on the American Left,
   they followed the Communists' lead.
   While this "civil religion" definition of fascism is useful, it does
   lead Jonah to some weaker arguments at the end of his book. Pointing
   out how modern liberalism is a statist civil religion for many people,
   he then goes on to point out fascism at work in the modern liberal. I
   think his arguments could have been stronger here if he'd only used
   the term fascist less. Yes, a lot of today's politics, mostly on the
   Left but also on the Right, draw from the same wellspring that gave us
   fascism, even draw from fascist ideas, but I don't think that's the
   same as being fascist. And even if it is, calling it such only sounds
   like name-calling.
   Even so, I think Liberal Fascism is worth reading. It's a useful
   corrective for all the misinformation about fascism that has reduced
   it to a nasty name to call someone and stripped it of its actual
   meaning.

References

   1. http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=backoftheenve-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0385511841&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=FFFFFF&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr