Who's the Real Fascist Here?

Re: "What the Daily Show Cut Out" by Jonah Goldberg which appeared on latimes.com on 22 January 2008

There still seems to be much stock placed in the old stereotype of slacker pot head graduate students coming up with crazy Utopian liberal ideas. But now the reality is that true market in crackpot ideas is amongst conservative readers. They love to read books about liberals who are godless, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and traitors, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and how Lincoln was a monster for trying to maintain the union, Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. Jonah Goldberg has written such a book with the fun title Liberal Fascism with a happy little Hitler on the front. Who really can blame him. If he didn't write it some other Joe would be be cashing those checks. I would advise that when he hawks the book he talks about how much fun he had writing it and what a nice car or whatever he was able to buy with with advance. But, don't expect to be taken seriously.

I myself am a life long teatotaller but I could well imagine that after a late night of chatting with with friends and enjoying a little bit of herb that one might think that this sort of a book was a really great idea. After all it is not as though there the concept is totally and completely without any support at all. There are some pithy facts that are interesting. For example Hitler sent representatives to New Orleans to inspect the public transport system because at the time it was known as a town where the trains ran on time. And, liberals at the time had some truly bad ideas. Hitler was much impressed with Americas innovations in eugenics which involved mass forced sterilizations of those considered for one reason or another deficient.

But the argument itself is complete unadulterated crap. Goldberg often mentions the Nazi party has the word "socialist" right there in its name. True enough. But to argue from this that socialist are actually like Nazis is like arguing that compassionate people are neoconservatives because Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. But just as Bush played on the common misconception that a compassionate conservative pursued conservative ideals in a more compassionate manner when the term really means that conservatives believe their tough policies are more compassionate, Hitler played upon the popular brand of Socialism to rise to power. On the night of long knives he killed all the prominent socialists in the party.

Though socialists and Fascists both attempt to use government controls to influence the economy, socialists use government help the disadvantaged while fascist attempt to control the economy to increase the incomes of the already spectacularly well off. In this sense Nazis shared some of the ideas of the Radical Republicans who went on a government spending spree to promote commerce with all the direct benefits going to the wealthy investor class.

And while conservatives cry a river over adult students who have to listen to an occasional wacky lecture, are tut tutted for foolishness such as stamping on the name Alla, or forced to smoke outside in the rain these are mere social conventions. There are conservative universities aplenty. There are still plenty of places where you a free to commit suicide by any means that pleases you, and stomping on the name of someone's god is just rude.

Police states involve things like secret detentions without charge. They also involve massive unregulated surveillance, sham trails, and institutionalized torture. We are certainly not there now. But conservatives have been instrumental in developing an infrastructure that could be rapidly expanded to accommodate a police state. The main course of liberalism is clearly differentiated from the goals and methods of Fascism. To claim otherwise is simply not a serious or even interesting argument.

Responding to "The left's patriotism gap" by Jonah Goldberg

This entry is a response to the "The Left's Patriotism Gap" written by Jonah Goldberg and appearing on latimes.com on 11 March 2008.

Goldberg's musings on patriotism starts with the premise that it a desirable that love for ones country is an unquestionable good that every American should have. I have to admit that I have envied the selfless patriotism that I have observed amongst people of other nationalities. Patriotism that encourages people to dedicate their lives to their country.

There are several reasons why this kind of patriotism is almost entirely absent in the United States whether the person in question be conservative or liberal. The United States is not a country defined by a common ancestry, or common faith. In the United States citizenship is defined by a shared belief in a political document and political philosophy. Further while other countries stress a life a service to Crown, Country, or people, the United States does not. Government is expected serve the individual rather than the other way around.

Originally Americans didn't even think of themselves as Americans, they identified themselves by their states. This type of thinking actually survived the civil war. Patriotism aimed at the federal government was largely the product of government propagandists who were charged with stirring up nationalism in the service of America's participation in World War I. A war whose causes and for which the justification for America's involvement therein remain mysterious to this day.

As Goldberg himself has written progressives latched on to this new patriotism with a passion because they saw it as a vehicle to promote policies that promoted a collective rather than individual good. The height of this impulse was the 60's. Many Americans took Kennedy's exhortation to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country seriously. Americans faced their demons of racism, sexism, and poverty.

But the conservative movement in the United States strongly rejected the more activist role of government inspired by this new patriotism. Reagan's answer to Kennedy's exhortation was "Are you better off?" From that moment on, the individuals' relationship with the government was almost always defined by the negative. The government wouldn't fight to repair the damage of slavery and segregation. The government wouldn't fight poverty. The government wouldn't protect labor organizers. Unsurprisingly poverty increased, segregation increased, and wages flat lined and began to fall. But an argument could be made that this was returning towards the original intent of the writers' of constitution.

But it developed a new entitled class. Those who were fortunate especially the investor class came to believe that they need not contribute to society at all. As Chaney said of military service during the Vietnam war they had other priorities. But though private charity rose it did not begin to match what was covered from the government. Many like Chaney also did not tithe to the church.

When 9-11 happened Bush exhorted the people to fight terrorism by shopping. It was reflective of how entitled conservatives had become. Bush could not ask them to pay more taxes, accept a draft, ration commodities needed for the war effort, or put the economy on war footing. As a result Bush was forced to field and army which was too small and lacking basic implements of war such as body and vehicle armor. The freedom from any responsibility expected by the wealthiest Americans came at a very high price for our soldiers and the Iraqis.

But even this was within the vision of our founders. But then Bush and Chaney went too far by suggesting that fighting terrorism was our first responsibility and proposing the theory of the unitary executive. For those who claim to be originalist this legal theory was truly ridiculous. It requires one to believe that the founding fathers declared independence because of the tyranny of King George and then turned around and empowered the Presidency with powers beyond the wildest dreams of the King and intended to confer on us citizens far fewer protections than they had under the monarchy. The founding fathers made it clear that their love of their country was very conditional. They demanded liberty or death. I am proud to say that I will not salute a flag of a dictator or give such a person any aid. We are not there yet, but if America chooses this path it will part ways with me.