Liberal Fascism

John Stewart made Goldberg look pretty foolish on "A Daily Show" last week.

If read as popular journalistic history, instead of careful philosophical treatise, "Liberal Fascism" is much worth reading. The chief aim of the book, written for the masses, is to pop the big red balloon of liberal/left self-congragulation. The aim is met, Bramwell's sour grapes notwithstanding.

If Goldberg had written a book on how certain prominent Democrats are somewhat illiberal, and may even have some fascist leanings, it would be easier to take him seriously.

That he overlooked the oxymoron in the title shows more ignorance than I can usually tolerate in political writing. In fact, if I knew where he lived, I might just send him a dictionary with "liberal" and "fascist" highlighted.

The point is worth making that national socialism/ Nazism did have many left wing elements - because it is something that many modern leftists refuse to believe. Of course National Socialists were also militaristic and racist, which modern leftists hate, so there are also significant differences.

The modern British National Party is a focus for intense leftist criticism in the UK - yet apart from its racism, the manifesto is almost identical with that of traditional socialists.

Some other types of fascism (eg General Franco in Spain) were *not* very left wing - being more theocratic/ militaristic - which is indeed the traditional organization of agrarian societies.

The main division is modern societies is not between left and right but between pro-modernizers and anti-modernizers. Modernizers favour capitalism, science & technology, and are generally libertarian - anti-modernizers favour culture, community and generally deploy a moralizing critique. (I am a modernizer.)

BGC, the idea that "modernizers" are generally libertarian is at odds with the facts. I suspect that it is the view of an engineer. If you check with scientists, I think you will not find that to be the case, and I am sure that most scientists would consider themselves "modernizers."

I haven't read Goldberg's book, but I judge it from the title: it's stupid. There may be some fascists who call themselves liberals, but, as RyanG points out, the term Liberal Fascism is oxymoronic, with the emphasis on "moron." If you check the definition of fascism, you find terms like "extreme right wing", "authoritarian" and "intolerant." Those terms are a lot closer to modern US conservatism than liberalism. And as we all know but some refuse to admit, modern libertarianism is a lot closer to modern US conservatism than to liberalism.

Excellent article, razib, thanks for posting that. It's nice to see a publication in a conservative magazine that does not hold up an unrecognizable caricature of liberals in making it's arguments.

BGC: you're essentially presenting a false-dichotomy. One is not either for "capitalism and science", or for "culture, community and moralizing". One can be pro-science and anti-capitalist. One can be pro-capitalism and pro-culture. As the Republican party in the states, and the conservative party in the UK successfully demonstrate, you can also be pro-capitalism and pro-moralizing.

Furthermore, the Nazi party was not left-wing, and neither is the BNP, if by "left-wing" you mean "liberal". Liberalism is inherently anti-racist. Building an autobahn or two, or putting up funds to build a Volkswagen, may be good ideas, but that did not make the Nazi party inherently liberal.

I think that Werther is right, more or less. The only real merit of Goldberg's book is that it tries to make liberals look bad, if that's what you want.

There's quite a lot of literature about the welfare state and fascism, Keynesianism and fascism, populism and fascism, racism and populism, authoritarianism and progressivism, and racism and progressivism. Some of it (Arendt, Hofstader, Hayek)is known directly or indirectly to most educated people, and the rest of it is known to people interested in the period. Goldberg has cherrypicked these books to come up with something to throw in liberals' faces, but hasn't contributed much otherwise.

By Goldberg's Austrian-economics definition fascism (welfare state, government intervention in the economy), pretty much every government on earth has been fascist since 1932. This makes his title empty. After 1917 the traditionalist conservative regimes were gone, and after 1932 the classical liberal regimes were gone. And very few people really miss them.

"The modern British National Party is a focus for intense leftist criticism in the UK - yet apart from its racism, the manifesto is almost identical with that of traditional socialists."

Really? I had no idea that "traditional socialists" supported policies such as raising the threshold for income tax, reintroducing the death penalty, promoting a nuclear deterrent, increasing defence spending, restoring corporal punishment in schools, and abolishing anti-discrimination laws. Possibly I'm not as informed about "traditional socialists" as you, but that argument seems to be as weak as Goldberg's, if not weaker.

I read the review. It was good criticism. Bramwell is unapologetically conservative and shows some of his own prejudices about liberals and conservatives, but I think he is at least fairly clear-headed in his assessment of some of the faults of both movements.

The always sensible and insightful Arnold Kling reviews Liberal Fascism at TCS and finds quite a bit to praise -

http://us.f332.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowFolder?rb=Inbox&reset=1&YY=51020&y…

So I would guess there is more to the book than Bramwell lets on.

Thanks for the responses from Mark P and AC. Pro and Anti modernization obviously simplifies, but not as much as left and right wing does - the division is cleaner.

For example, one of the most influential extreme political alliances in the UK is an anti-modernization one encompassing both extreme left and right: 'Respect/ Stop the War' is an alliance between the Socialist Workers Party (old style communists) and Radical Islamicists - George Galloway is their most famous spokesperson.

The Republican Party is a good demonstration of the failure of left and right as a descriptor - it is an alliance of anti-modernizing conservatives and a smaller group of pro-modernizing libertarians (eg. Arnold Schwartzenegger or journalist David Brooks). The Democrats are an alliance of pro-modernizing technocratic Clinton types (eg. blogger Brad DeLong, or Larry Summers) and anti-modernizing socialists (eg the economic protectionists).

BGC: I'm not sure if you're from the UK or not, but there is nothing influential about George Galloway's "Respect" party. George Galloway himself may occasionally make newspaper front-pages by saying something completely ridiculous, but he is their only MP; a position he holds principally because he was a popular ex-Labour candidate who was against the Iraq war; his votes - and votes for Respect in general - are not a sign of Respect's influence, but more of disillusionment with the Tony Blair's government.

I would also question your contention that he is a spokesperson for radical islamicsts. In respect to radical muslims, he has certainly said some very stupid things, and has invited some ridiculously dodgy people to visit. This is beyond question. In this respect, however, I would argue - I'm no fan of Galloway, I don't agree with him and I think he's a dolt - that he is letting his views on UK and American actions in the middle east cloud his judgement to the extent that he only sees these islamicsts as peaceful people who would all go about their business happily if only we stopped supporting Israel. He genuinely doesn't seem to understand who he's supporting.

As far as left and right are concerned; no, they're not ideal labels, and people pay far more attention to them than they deserve. But "modernizers"/"anti-modernizers" distinction is not better: it contains too many false-dichotomies. Instead of lumping two independent policy groups (fiscal and social) together into two population groups (left and right), you've lumped three in to two: you're requiring too many assumptions to be made, without there actually being a strong correlation. I very much doubt - for example - that a person's views on science in anyway relates to their views on morality or capitalism and almost certainly says nothing about their views on libertarianism. So, far from making it simpler, you're simply increasing confusion about a persons view when a label is applied to them.

Incidentally, going back to your original comment on Nazi's, you will note that this very point was addressed quite succinctly in the original review: you can't complain that the left don't "acknowledge" Hitler as implementing some left-leaning policies, without also mentioning that he also implemented right-leaning policies. But I wonder: was he a "modernizer", or an "anti-modernizer": he certainly supported science, was fond of capitalism, unarguably loved (german) culture, was fond of (german) community and was nothing if not a moralizer.

Liberalism is inherently anti-racist.

...then before world war ii there were hardly any liberals.

I'm not a Jonah Goldberg fan, but people going on about the title being an oxymoron are unaware of its origin. The term was coined by H.G. Wells, who was promoting it, so blame him. He also floated the term "enlightened Nazism". Goldberg is interviewed by Will Wilkinson here and Vox Day here.

...then before world war ii there were hardly any liberals.

By the current definition? Yes, they were rare. Racism in the 1930's was rife. Reading H.P Lovecraft's tales is an exercise in mental torture 70 years on; his stories are iconic, but they're as horrifying for their blatant misogyny and racism as they are for their tales of squid-headed flying beasts of cthulu.

In 20 years time I hope people will be saying the same about current liberals. "Call themselves liberal?", they'll say. "Call themselves enlightened?", and they'll be right. I don't know what prejudices we currently hold that are taken for "common sense" that will be overturned in 20 or 30 years. How far will feminism progress so that women are given opportunities I don't even realise they're denied? How far will racial-equality progress? Will the UK even need a commission for racial equality in 20 or 30 years time? I hope not.

That's what I mean by liberalism being inherently anti-racist. It means, to me at least, that my views may be shaped by the times I live in; I recognise that. I may be racist or misogynistic and not even realise it! But that can, and it should, be corrected.

Essentially, if the liberals in 2100 hold the same views I do, then I think the liberals have failed.

It is not enough to open a dictionary or regurgiate popular understanding about the meaning of fascism, as some have suggested above. Goldberg's point is that the word must be understood in terms of its intellectual origin and *fundamental* characteristics, rather than its modern connotations, which are themselves the product of a particular political viewpoint.

Any political philosophy is fundamentally about the role of the state in society. Fascism is the system under which property and the means of production are nominally in private hands, but are effectively regulated and directed by the state as a supposed representative of the people en masse (the nation).

It is the totalitarian nature of fascism that causes it to closely resemble more accepted forms of socialism. As with any totalitarian movement, it is convenient to have an enemy to demonize. But whether this enemy constitutes a race, a class, a religion, or an external population, is a superficial aspect of the thing.

It is not enough to open a dictionary or regurgiate popular understanding about the meaning of fascism, as some have suggested above. Goldberg's point is that the word must be understood in terms of its intellectual origin and *fundamental* characteristics, rather than its modern connotations, which are themselves the product of a particular political viewpoint.

right, but you can't have anything be *fundamental* unless you engage in the game of dictionary definition. that's the problem, and that's what seems to be a major point of bramwell's piece.

Framing Good Politics, like Goldberg's book implicitly does, in terms of being "most dissimilar" from the Nazis, is in fact a Status Quo Liberal propaganda victory, that works to undermine the legitimacy of conservative concerns on a number of issues, from the birth rate to race to military adventures of all kinds.

Instead conservative propagandists like Goldberg should be (should have been) working overtime to exploit the massive world collapse and failure of Communism to stigmatize socialism the way the Nazi failure stigmatized race. Right now 'Classist', as an epithet, should have all the realized potency and personal destructive power as 'Racist'. All legitimate talk about poverty and inequality should have been forced into hushed tones underground; into a taboo political landmine. 'The Conscience of a Liberal' should have been forced into the shadows like a work of pornography like The Bell Curve. Equivalents to public figures like James Watson, that express tangential knowledge of certain socialism supporting research (say David Card's work on the minimum wage) should universally be driven into the dirt by the public, as well as their closest friends and colleagues, as latent kulak murderers. Al Gore, of course, would have been personally destroyed and driven from polite society in the same way, with his true message on global warming, since global warming is widely believed to give energy to socialistic politics. And rightwing equivalents to terms like 'McCarthyite' and 'red-baiting' should have emerged to embarrass and discredit legitimate acts to criticize and stigmatize rightwingers.

This book is a sterling example of how conservatives have spectacularly failed to exploit and capitalize on political trends. Libertarians would run the planet right now if they capitalized as much off of Communism's failures as liberals capitalized off of Hitler's.

Wow, Al Green, I'm wondering whether this thread is beginning to resemble Orac's Zombie Hitler. I'm not sure though whether you're arguing for or against the conservative political movement! If you're arguing the case for then that's a disturbing diatribe. If you're arguing against, well, it's equally disturbing.

Perhaps, Eric, but in order for your point to be valid, it must be demonstrated that liberalism and fascism share some heritage, and the sharing must be more than simply having a few points in common. As the review makes clear, you can find instances of shared views in virtually any two political movements. The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time and many liberals favor mass transit does not make liberals fascist. Besides, based on interviews with Goldberg, his research and reasoning are sloppy enough to make any conclusions highly suspect.

And it's absurd to say that liberalism and fascism share fundamental characteristics. Simply absurd. They clearly do not, other than the coincidental.

the term Liberal Fascism is oxymoronic, with the emphasis on "moron." If you check the definition of fascism, you find terms like "extreme right wing", "authoritarian" and "intolerant.

Um, no.

And it's absurd to say that liberalism and fascism share fundamental characteristics. Simply absurd. They clearly do not, other than the coincidental.

On the contrary, both modern liberalism and fascism hold that the state is all-encompassing and has both the right and the authority to direct the lives of individuals as it sees fit. They differ slightly in their conception of how the state should be organized, but that is all.

Classic liberalism is quite different... but that is no longer what 'liberal' is used to mean in a political sense.

Any political philosophy is fundamentally about the role of the state in society. Fascism is the system under which property and the means of production are nominally in private hands, but are effectively regulated and directed by the state as a supposed representative of the people en masse (the nation).It is the totalitarian nature of fascism that causes it to closely resemble more accepted forms of socialism.

This is a self-serving, inadequate definition of fascism, much like Goldberg's, customized to make liberals and Social Democrats look bad.

The term was coined by H.G. Wells, who was promoting it, so blame him.

Goldberg wasn't writing about H. G. Wells, who died 61 years ago and whose best-known works were written long before that. Wells is mostly remembered as an early scienc-fiction writer today.

On the contrary, both modern liberalism and fascism hold that the state is all-encompassing

No, liberalism does not. It's actually less intrusive than big-government, militarist, authoritarian, socially conservative conservativism.

Little-government conservatives are in a world of hurt today, because they took their chances on Bush and he proved to be a total fraud.

Caledonian, you can find different definitions depending on where you look. My Mac's included dictionary uses the terms I referenced. M-W online uses terms like " centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition ..." Pick what you like.

As to your statement that liberalism and fascism "differ slightly in their conception of how the state should be organized?'" You cannot possibly be serious. If you are, I think you should read or reread the cited review of the book. You are falling into the same trap that Goldberg does.

Not at all. The modern political movement of 'liberalism' is liberal about very little. The primary difference is rhetoric and signal words.

Your definition of Fascism sounds as though it would describe the Soviet state quite well.

First, it's not my definition. It's two definitions I found in two different dictionaries. One is the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. The other is the Oxford American dictionary included with the Mac OS.

Second, your description of liberalism appears to be somewhat idosyncratic. The M-W online dictionary defines liberalism as "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." I consider the ACLU a liberal organization. I presume you disagree. If so, I disagree with you. And that apparently leaves us on different sides of a divide that apparently cannot be bridged by language.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about, because you're confusing the technical or classic meaning of 'liberal' with its use in modern American politics.

Please see the difference between American liberalism, Classical liberalism, and economic liberalism.

In the old sense, the most liberal political ideology in American politics is the Libertarians. "Democrat-style" liberalism has little to do with this.

Too many links seems to be lethal (you can ignore or delete that, razib), so I'll try a shorter version.

Mark P, you need to grasp the distinction between what most of the world means by 'liberal' and what the term means in modern American political thought. I suggest you start with the Modern liberalism in the United States article of Wikipedia's, paying close attention to how the concept differs from traditional ideas.

There have always been two parallel discussions about fascism: a scholarly one and an activist one. These discussions intersect in some places but they are only tenuously related.

We're all familiar with the activist formulations. Leftist activists: conservative Christians = Christofascists; Communists: social democrats / welfare capitalists = social fascists; ultra-libertarians: FDR liberals = friendly fascists

I'm actually surprised by how positive the reviews of Liberal Fascism have been on the Right, with a handful of exceptions. Frankly, I regard this as a sign of the intellectual decline of the conservative and libertarian movements.

Read real scholars on fascism like Stanley Payne, Zeev Sternell, and Roger Griffin, not pop activism like Goldberg, Jon Jay Ray, Naomi Wolf, Chris Hedges etc.

A little peripheral but broadly related - check out this article on Pioneer Fund, Mankind Quarterly, Northern League nexus:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_n1_v54/ai_21107572/print

From the Widipedia article:

'Modern liberalism in the United States, also referred to as American liberalism or simply as "liberalism" by Americans themselves, is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty, defined as the provision of both negative rights, that is freedom from coercion, and positive rights, such as education, health care and other services and goods believed to be required for human development and self-actualization.'

In what possible sense can this be considered like fascism, which places the good of the state above all? Fascism considers that the good of the individual is served by ensuring that the state's (or society's) good is preserved. Liberalism places the individual above the state, believing that the good of society is served by protecting the rights of the individual.

Yes, liberals believe that one role of the government is to protect and serve the individual, by preserving some rights against government limits, and by limiting the actions of others that would impinge on them. Liberals believe in things like food and drug regulations, workplace safety regulations, workplace wage and hour regulations, product safety regulations, anti-trust regulations, air and water pollution regulations and the like. Many conservatives (including some who call themselves libertarians) oppose these. That does not make liberals fascists and conservatives liberals. Liberals tend to look at government responsibility as it relates to the individual. Conservatives/libertarians tend to look at government as it relates to helping them make money or not preventing them from making money in any way they desire.

I think conservatives differ from self-identified libertarians in their attitudes towards personal behavior, often called "morality" by conservatives. In this respect, liberals are more like libertarians and not at all like conservatives or fascists.

Modern American conservatism is clearly as much or more like traditional fascism in many respects than modern liberalism. From the review of Goldberg's book:

"That liberalism and fascism happen to overlap is not surprising. One can find just as many similarities between fascism and movement conservatism: both assail communism, exaggerate security threats, rationalize wars of aggression, and uphold nationalism (what sentimentalists call patriotism) and its symbols (flags, founding myths, worship of national heroes)."

And, by the way, if you go to the dictionary.reference.com you cite, check the definitions of fascism. Note the several references to differences between liberalism and fascism. And it's not fair to simply say that in the US liberalism believes the same things that fascists do. That's not argument, that's name-calling.

You should also note that dictionary definitions, in order to be useful in any sense, must reflect not some abstract meaning of a word, but the actual meaning as used in the society for which the word is defined. Thus you cannot say that in the US liberalism is not what the dictionary defines, because the dictionary defines what people mean when they say the word. You might argue that people don't practice what they preach, but that's a different argument.

Keep reading. Especially the sections on how American liberalism differs from the use of the term elsewhere.

The key difference between "left" and "right" authoritarians is the excuses they use to exercise power and control, but actual methods are quite similar and the ends are identical. Most of the differences are superficial: rightists tend to glorify military force while leftists tend to glorify procedural consensus, for example.

You haven't responded to anything I have said, Caledonian. I guess there's no point in continuing.

Rightists tend to glorify military force while leftists tend to glorify procedural consensus, for example.

And rightists have goon squads shich beat people up, whereas liberals have care centers which dispense hugs. And rightists have secret police, detention camps, and death camps, whereas liberals have colleges and housing projects.

See? They're the same!

Will Wilkinson interviews Jonah Goldberg about Liberal Fascism on Bloggingheads:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/

Goldberg makes a lot of valid and interesting points. I haven't yet read the book, but on the basis of this interview it is clear that Liberal Fascism should not be dismissed on the basis of hostile reviews.

People may or may not agree with some or all of Goldberg's analysis, but Liberal Fascism is obviously a serious, potentially significant, contribution to public debate and discourse.

But I wonder: was he a "modernizer", or an "anti-modernizer": he certainly supported science, was fond of capitalism, unarguably loved (german) culture, was fond of (german) community and was nothing if not a moralizer.

He didn't support science unless he happened to like it. Remember "German science" and "Jewish science"? The theory of relativity was considered "Jewish science", so it was decreed to be wrong...

The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time

The funny thing is, he didn't. The trains still didn't run on time.

He only said he had done it.

On the contrary, both modern liberalism and fascism hold that the state is all-encompassing and has both the right and the authority to direct the lives of individuals as it sees fit. They differ slightly in their conception of how the state should be organized, but that is all.

One such "slight" difference is that fascists don't believe democracy can be any good. Instead, the state simply executes the Leader's will, the Leader being believed to be some kind of incarnation of the will of the people. Correct me if I'm wrong about US liberals, but surely they prefer democratic methods of determing that will...? Or are they all communists (to whom the Central Committee of the Party is the incarnation of the will of the people -- in other words, the Leader is a collective instead of a single person, except if the single person is Stalin or Mao or Kim Il-sung)?

When you get on a roll, you can be pretty stupid, Caledonian.

Most of the differences are superficial: rightists tend to glorify military force while leftists tend to glorify procedural consensus, for example.

And that is "superficial"...? Or what do you mean by "procedural"?

One such "slight" difference is that fascists don't believe democracy can be any good.

Oh, it's more complicated than that. Fascism usually glorifies the "Will of the People", but the leader is the one who interprets it, and supposedly democratic functions can be disregarded as not representing the "Will of the People".

Liberals (by which I mean the modern, American variety) do pretty much the same thing: they talk a lot about democracy but value it mostly as a tool of "soft" social influence and control.

Forgive me, Mr. MarjanoviÄ, but it seems you do an awful lot of talking about American politics despite not being American or even (IIRC) living here. I don't recall you living in Britain either, the other place most influenced by the American political dynamic. Am I mistaken about this?

I just wanted to emphasis this comment:

Or are they all communists (to whom the Central Committee of the Party is the incarnation of the will of the people -- in other words, the Leader is a collective instead of a single person, except if the single person is Stalin or Mao or Kim Il-sung)?

That's not an attribute of actual Communism... which to my knowledge has never actually been tried. The 'communists' were as communistic as 'liberals' are liberal or 'conservatives' are conservative.

The names given to the political affiliations have little or nothing to do with the philosophies those affiliations are supposedly based on. There are assertions of ideological difference, but the actual differences are stylistic and tribal-identity ones only.

I am not personally familiar with the ways those terms are used in other countries, although I am told they are more congruent with their original meanings. And frankly, I don't really care - what I care about is what is being reference by 'liberal' or 'conservative' where I live.

Excellent article, razib, thanks for posting that. It's nice to see a publication in a conservative magazine that does not hold up an unrecognizable caricature of liberals in making it's arguments.

Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | January 23, 2008 11:44 AM

Right! Left Wing Fox! LOL!
So much more can be accomplished when the tone is held down to where it is a conversation and not a circus! Thanks for your comment!
Dave Briggs :~)

David, we don't need Ausländers here.