Some reviewers claim this is a difficult book to read. Nonsense; it's simple, well written, and straightforward. Its premise, though, is one very difficult to accept. Alas, the truth always is!
P,S.: Kudos to the editor: the hitlerian Happy Face on the cover deserves a Reuben Editorial Cartoon Award!

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a
> leading
> American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the
> Socialist Party of America.
>
> The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US ,
> Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech:
>
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But,
> under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the
> socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation,
> without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer
> need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.
>
> The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
>

Assuming all political positions must be plotted along a horizontal left-right x axis hurts the argument of this book. Rather, consider a four-sided model composed of x and y axes, where the familiar left/liberal and right/conservative positions are flanked on the north and south by libertarian/individualist and authoritarian/collectivist positions.

We can then account for the fact that both left and right can be guilty of so-called 'fascist' authoritarian/collectivist thinking in their ranks. We usually call it "totalitarian" when it occurs on the left, and "fascist" when it occurs on the right, for good reasons. Fascism was philosophically rooted in vitalism, rule by the physically better or stronger, where totalitarianism was supposed to be rule by the smarter or 'more rational'. So the right/fascist and left/totalitarian labels apply well to the distinctly different-flavored versions of collectivism on each side. Mr. Goldberg's argument then comes off as a pointless exercise in playground name-changing.

Mr. Goldberg seems to be saying nothing more than 'I know you are, but what am I?' in response to frustration at being called 'fascist'. How does it contribute to public discourse in any substantive way to make a whole book around renaming the totalitarian tendencies amongst real leftists 'fascism' instead of the perfectly intelligible and useful 'totalitarian'?

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R22VLFU9U31HU7 My video about the book Liberal Fascism.
[...]

I recently purchased this book a while ago and started reading it. This is just historic truth, so if you don't like it, get over it.

This book was a very difficult read. Too much background and history about facism and comparisons to Nazism. I became confused trying to keep up with the writer and his views about facism, Nazism,Socialism and Communism. I don't recommend this book because it doesn't place enough emphasis on modern day examples of facism in our society today. People such as Barack Obama,socialist-communist-black liberation theologian, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, black liberation theologian,racist,propagandist, Rev. Lewis Farakahn, black Muslim, racist, Jew hater,etc. There are many modern day examples like these extremist people that should be reported about in this book.

Jonah Goldberg's book should be required reading in all college freshman political science classes. It took me years of independent reading to "un-learn" all the wrong-headed and misleading political analysis of fascism that is 'common-knowledge'. The fact that Fascism in general is the child of Progressivism is fairly well known, but the chapter on the abuses of the Wilson Administration was a real eye-opener. George W. Bush never even imagined 1/10th of the anti-civil liberties measures that Wilson put into place and enforced. As expected, the writing is fresh, clear, concise, and has the inimitable Goldberg wit..
This book is extremely timely. Next year, when the new administration begins to praise "bold experimentation" and urges "unity" to save the nation, you will know what to expect.

This is a fantastic book, both for a practical and academic understanding of political systems. It takes time to read, as it is very complete. It also appears to be well researched. If you want a better understanding of Obama and what his presidency holds in store, this is a must read. My copy was published in 2007 (pre-Obama); the author's definition of liberal fascist, with there use of words, ideas, and policies seem to dovetail Obama in many ways. The concept of "hope" mentioned in the book (it was even put into quotes) is almost frightening. I personally believe the book cover is dead on the mark. The book is very fair in the sense that it doesn't imply liberal fascists are Nazi's, etc, but it does do a good job explaining that they exist in the same family tree. After reading, you might understand your liberal friends better in the sense of understanding their motivations, etc. You will also be armed with well reasoned arguments as to why Obama is a bit frightening.

Having the Washington Post review this book is like having Hitler review the Torah. Amazon once again shows it's true colors.

What we have here is simply a "loser's squeal" from an opinion writer who is seeing the national consensus turn against him. Rather than accept this setback gracefully and lay the groundwork for a comeback, he rages against the winning side. It's a unfortunate commentary on the author and the point of view he represents that he can muster no better counterargument than this compilation of name-calling and bile. How very sad.

Somewhat over the top, but the author sticks pins into a lot of hypocritical balloons. Definitely worth the price.

Possibly one of the best political books I have ever read. Although it is in a different genre, it ranks with 1984 for its effect on my political thoughts. Folks who don't like this book just want to say Fascism = Nazism = Holocaust and my guess is they probably didn't read it.

A long and important book on the history of fascism and activist big government which has been highly recommended by such serious minds as Charles Murray and Tom Wolfe. I found it deeply insightful, very carefully researched, and extensively documented. A main point is that the differences between fascism, communism, and modern leftist "liberalism" are far less significant than their essential similarities: the state is God, and the individual is subordinate to the State in all these political variations. Goldberg argues in favor of classical liberalism, and its focus on liberty - to which a false utopianism is the deadly enemy. This is a wonderful book that will make you think, and is likely to transform your understanding of political history.

This is a very well documented history of politics in this country since Woodrow Wilson and World War I, focusing on the similarities between liberal movements in this country and fascism under Mussolini and Hitler, minus the horrors of the so-called Final Solution. There was more mutual admiration between Wilson and FDR and Italian fascists than most of us have been led to believe, and its well documented by the author. He shows how liberals since World War II have successfully stigmatized the political right as fascist when in fact the opposite is true. He traces the corporatism of Wilson, FDR and modern liberals and compares it to Mussolini. Looking at today, he points to he demands for unity and collectivism and demphasizing individual rights and responsibilities as warnings for the future.

The "editorial review" of this book is almost as interesting as the book. It ignores all of the documented history of limitations of and assaults on individual and economic history under Wilson and Roosevelt (the most valuable part of the book since none of this is taught in schools) and instead let's us know that "Neocons support militarism." Naurally, in constrast to Goldgerg who provides massive documentation the reviewer expects us to rely upon his judgement (perhaps augmented by the "authority" of the WaPo) for everything he says.

Ok Fascist is a harsh word but read how it is defined in the book. Next notice that as someone that supports individual freedom and responsibility the author sees it as a bad thing. This extensive history gives case after case of the growth of liberal fascism and gives anecdotes that liberals say are goals and are positive. So rather than have flame wars go ahead liberals and be proud that what you support is fascist and is causing the US to look like that socialist utopia of Nazi Germany,

Truly, this book is utter garbage... avoid it at all costs.

When it comes to the far-right, "down" is "up" and "up" is "down"!

Thank God the far-right's reign of terror in America is finally about to end on November 4th, 2008!

Jonah Goldberg's _Liberal Fascism_, (Doubleday, 2007), finds that the elites in the US espouse fascism, and have done so from Theodore Roosevelt onwards. He actually concludes that we are all fascists now, more or less.

I would characterize the book as a continuation of Eric Voegelin's _The New Science of Politics_ at the level of a catalog of evidence rather than at the theoretical level. So I highly recommend it to my friends. There are problems with it. For instance, it is deficient in theological insight and understanding of such documents as _Rerum Novarum_ and _Quadragessimo Anno_, and one must imagine what a society of three hundred million people would look like without fascist elements, for the author is silent on this important consideration, but nevertheless the detail is enthralling, especially if you were raised, like me, on an account of America's past that was largely harmonious mythopoesis, with, as Goldberg so nicely puts it, the unpleasant details "air brushed" from the story.

Many will be interested in the dominance in the American academy of Bismarckian educated academics (Apparently 9000 studied nach Deutschland by 1900 AD and, for instance, at one time, all faculty at Johns Hopkins had received their training there.)

One historical clarification made by Goldberg: What was called fascism in Italy was called progressivism in the US., and Benito Mussolini borrowed freely from Wilson; fascism was highly admired in the US until Italy invaded Ethiopia. Fascism was a left wing socialist phenomenon which the Comintern denominated "right wing" because it was an obstacle to Stalin's expansionism.

Here is his mention of Eric Voegelin, although Voegelin comes to mind hundreds of times as one reads:

"As mentioned before, Richard Pipes described Bolshevism and Fascism as twinned heresies of Marxism. Both sought to impose socialism of one sort or another, erase class differences, and repudiate the decadent democratic-capitalist systems of the West. In a sense, Pipes's description doesn't go far enough. While Fascism and Bolshevism were surely heresies of Marxism, virtually all collectivist visions at the end of the nineteenth and be ginning of the twentieth centuries were heresies of Marxism in the sense that Marxism itself was heretical. All of these isms, as the philosopher Eric Voegelin argued, were premised on the idea that men could create Utopias through the rearrangement of economic forces and political will. Marxism, or really Leninism, was the most influential and powerful of these heresies and came to define the left.

"But just as Leninism was a kind of applied Marxism, so, too, was Fascism (as well as technocracy, Fabian socialism, corporatism, war socialism, German social democracy, and so on). Collectivism was the "wave of the future, " according to the title and argument of a book by Anne Morrow Lindbergh, and it would be known by different names in different places. The fascist moment that gave birth to the Russian-Italian method" was in reality a religious awakening in which Christianity was to be either sloughed off and replaced or "updated" by the new progressive faith in man's ability to perfect the world." (p 139) (Interestingly Voegelin's name is NOT found in the index!)


A few other bits:

"Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR's Brain Trust, said of Italian Fascism, "It's the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen.It makes me envious." (p.11)

"The one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian. But what do we mean when we say something is 'totalitarian'? The word has certainly taken on an understandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it's become a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that's not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside: where truly no child was left behind.

"Again, it is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice,not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian--or 'holistic,' if you prefer--in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and outer appearance, all have political salience for liberal fascists. Liberals place their faith in priestly experts who know better, who plan, exhort, badger, and scold. They try to use science to discredit traditional notions of religion and faith, but they speak the language of pluralism and spirituality to defend 'nontraditional' beliefs. Just as with classical fascism, liberalfascists speak of a 'Third Way' between right and left where all good things go together and all hard choices are 'false choices.' "

The idea that there are no hard choices--that is, choices between competing goods--is religious and totalitarian because it assumes that all good things are fundamentally compatible. The conservative or classical liberal vision understands that life is unfair, that man is flawed, and that the only perfect society, the only real Utopia, waits for us in the next life." (p 14)

"In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueveille warned: "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones."(p 20) [For me this was the most compelling quote.]

"Almost every program of the early New Deal was rooted in the politics of war, the economics of war, or the aesthetics of war emerging from World War I. ...Many New Deal agencies, the famous "alphabet soup," were mostly continuations of various boards and committees set up fifteen years earlier during the war." (p 151)

Particularly interesting is the account of the founder of the New Republic, Herbert Croly, who was baptized in the religion of August Comte, converted by William James to progressive Christianity at Harvard, and became the progessive guru for Wilson.

The progressives, who later changed their name to "liberal," were also, by and large, eugenicists and provided Germany with a great deal of theory and practice. Progressives were in favor or compulsory sterilization of the "unfit" rather than waiting for evolutionary sorting. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr: "Three generations of idiots is enough!" (You will remember the quote in "Judgment at Nuremberg" spoken by the defense lawyer played by Maximilian Shell.)

Herbert Hoover, "the great engineer," was offered the Democratnomination in 1920 because he was the most admired member of the most admired technical class at that time. He was only damned as a right wing capitalist later in the New Deal when they needed a bogie man to account for the failure of the anti-depression measures. Of course the New Deal has become the untouchable "cargo cult" of current liberalism, in Goldberg's memorable phrase.

A worthwhile read.

This has answered so many questions I had concerning liberals in America. Things that didn't make any sense now do, like why some the wealthiest people in America support a Marxist system.
Fascinating and scary at the same time. America, we've been warned.

What an Opus Magnum! I promise you will never look at the left the same again and you will never be lied to again that fascism is right wing. Fascism is nothing but a fellow heresy, along with bolshevism, of Marxism,competing for the hearts and minds of the left who want all power centralized within the government. Read and be informed.

I bought two copies. One to lend and one to keep. This is one long and excellent retelling of how the left has subverted history and done a fair job of subverting America. It is to weep to consider that this isn't common knowledge and shouted from our rooftops. Freedom!

It is very unfortunate that people use the review process to attack a book which they are very unlikely to have read. It is always fascinating that the very same people who so often lecture to all of us about "tolerance" are the least so. It is particularly bothersome that Amazon chose to use one short, positive review and one very lengthy negative review. Despite some of the reviews, Mr. Goldberg's book is fair. Kool-aid drinkers from both sides of the aisle need not bother because neither side would much like what they are reading unless they are interested in truth. Whoever you are, whatever your notions, if you are opened minded, you will likely realize some of those notions require re-examination. This book is particularly helpful if you have been trying to educate yourself as much as possible about American history, have done much other reading, and are sincerely interested in seeking the truth. If you've been asking yourself: Just when did this country start to "go off the rails", you will find a lot of answers. Other well-written books about the history of Progressives, socialists, and Marxists support the documented information in this book. A couple of others I have read, and I have no idea from what political persuasion these gentlemen come, would be the very well documented book by Ronald J. Pestritto, Professor at the University of Dallas Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (American Intellectual Culture)and another, by Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Again, despite all of the partisan reviews, if you read at minimum, the three books noted, you will see the dots connecting. Mr. Goldberg is not about finger pointing or name calling, he's about laying out, step by step, point A to point B, etc. Michael Mann's review, in itself, is to be disregarded because he accuses Goldberg of leaving out labeling so-called "Conservatives" as the "f-word", like Richard Nixon. Mr. Mann has revealed his own lack of knowledge of historical facts or that he didn't read the book closely, or well. A number of so-called "conservatives" are mentioned, including Pres. George W. Bush. Many aspects of Pres. Bush's policies, do have, in fact, elements of the "f-word", as Mr. Mann calls it. It is a fallacy of the left or perhaps a lack of much contemplation, that every individual with an "R" behind their title in elected office are automatically conservative. Richard Nixon was not conservative, he was a "liberal" Republican. Pres. Bush's fiscal policies and "compassionate conservatism" alone disqualify him from being considered truly conservative. In order to make that assessment, as a conservative, I did much reading, but didn't arrive at my conclusions until I read this book. Until or unless people are willing to start "calling out" the wrong they see in their leadership, regardless to which political party they belong, it's hard to imagine how much, if anything, will come about to change the high amount of dissatisfaction and distrust most Americans feel about their government. To fully get one's mind around the definition of fascism, how it has weaved its way through history, and most importantly, what it means for freedom, this book is vital.

I liked the picture on the dust jacket. I opened the book; read the introduction, and even understood it. So far so good. Then I started reading a bunch of words in the chapters with all kinds of names of people I've never heard of. They influenced Mussolini, Wilson, Hitler, FDR, LBJ. And it kept going like that. I was looking for more one-lined Ann Coluteresque zingers like: Wilson imprisoned more political dissidents than Mussolini; FDR detained many times more non-enemy combatants (Americans mostly) than has GW Bush detained guys with guns found in combat areas; it takes a village to raise an idiot. Those kind of one-liners. Perhaps they could have been deployed at the start of each chapter to focus my meager attention span. Ultimately this book was just too smart for me. At least when I watch the Glenn Beck Show and see Jonah Goldberg as a guest, I understand what he is saying. Perhaps those thousands of Lefty Liberal College Professors should read this book, but they won't (can't be caught with it and risk tenure). As for me, I'm waiting for Mr. Goldberg to come out with a pop-up picture book.

I have been looking for more indepth study of liberalism written by someone who isn't one. This works well for me.

It does not surprise me that neocons are accusing Liberals of being fascists. It simply implies that neocons have recognized that they themselves are promoting fascism in government.

One of Karl Rove's mantras is to accuse your opponent of your own worst failings.

Over the past decade, the ideological battle between liberals and conservatives has been fought on the internet and in the local bookstore. Whether it is Al Franken calling conservatives liars, or Ann Coulter imploring her followers to refrain from speaking to liberals, the public has been inundated with many opinions from which to choose. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg has recently joined the fray with Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Though Franken, Coulter, and others like them are long on opinion and short on truth, Goldberg's contribution is well thought out and based on facts. In Liberal Fascism, Goldberg traces liberalism from its origins in the nineteenth century through its maturity in the twentieth century while cleverly showing how it fed off the European Fascism movement. He then brings the reader to the Liberal Fascism of today.

Although this is Goldberg's first book, he is no stranger to the written word. According to his biography on the web site National Review Online, where he is an editor,Goldberg is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and his syndicated column appears in the Chicago Tribune, New York Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and many others. He also appears as a political commentator on a number of television shows including "Good Morning America," "Larry King Live," and "Special Report with Brit Hume." Though a writer since his college days, his big break came when he wrote about the media frenzy surrounding his mother, Lucianne Goldberg and her role in the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal of the late 1990s. She advised Linda Tripp to tape record her conversations with Lewinsky and to convince her to save the now-infamous "blue dress."

From the introduction, entitled "Everything You Know About Fascism is Wrong," Goldberg grabs the reader's attention. He quotes the late George Carlin, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts...It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts." (1) This statement should remove any question about the artistry of the book's front cover: a large yellow smiley face complete with a Hitler mustache. While lengthy, the introduction spells out exactly what Goldberg is going to tell the reader in the remainder of the book. It is no mystery that he believes we are living in a time where the fascistic bent of Italy's Mussolini and Germany's Hitler are being blended with the quasi-socialistic policies of presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

After the introduction, Goldberg leads the reader through a fascinating history of the rise of fascism in Europe. Although Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy, has been vilified, mostly due to his association with Hitler and the Third Reich, we are reminded that for the good part of a decade, he was considered a great leader. In 1923, the New York Times boasted that, "Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home." (27) Noted Americans such as humorist Will Rogers, Hollywood mogul Lionel Barrymore, and legendary journalist Lowell Thomas proclaimed his greatness. On the international scene, Sigmund Freud and Winston Churchill were quite smitten with him. In addition, James A. Farrell, the president of U.S. Steel Corporation, said he was "`the greatest living man' in the world." (29) Goldberg concludes the Mussolini chapter with a brief description on how Mussolini gained his beliefs, first as a socialist then as a fascist, ending with his ill-fated attempt to flee to Switzerland in 1945 when he was captured by Italian partisans and executed.

Mussolini might have been remembered more favorably had he not associated himself with the subject of the next chapter, Adolph Hitler. Goldberg leads the reader on a brief history of the rise of Hitler and how he became so enamored with socialism. Students of history will be familiar with the 1923 "Beer Hall Putsch" and his subsequent imprisonment where he wrote the infamous Mein Kampf, as well as the efforts to promote Germany in the 1936 Olympics and the murderous "Kristallnacht" of 1938. Here, Goldberg begins to paste together how today's liberals use the term Nazi to describe those who call themselves conservatives. He says that the left "cherry-pick[s] the facts to form a caricature of what the Third Reich was about...[with] the desired effect to cast Nazism as the polar opposite of Communism." "[The] roles of industrialists...[are] greatly exaggerated, while the very large and substantial leftist and socialist aspects of Nazism..." are minimized. (57) Rather than being a right-wing conservative as many on the left would proclaim, Hitler should be considered a leftist because Nazism "...emphasized many of the themes of the later New Lefts...the primacy of race...an emphasis on the organic and holistic - including environmentalism, health food, and exercise - and...the need to `transcend' notions of class." (59)

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are the subjects of the next two chapters and each provides a bridge from which fascism in Europe crosses over to the United States. One could argue, as Goldberg does, that Wilson was the grandfather of modern liberalism in America. Back then, liberals were called progressives and Wilson led the way with a progressive agenda, including proclaiming the Constitution's series of checks-and-balances as outdated and by furthering the Darwinian cause of a "living Constitution." Wilson also formed the "West's first modern ministry for propaganda" in the Committee on Public Information (CPI). This group implored Americans against protesting the country's involvement in World War I. Another Wilson organization, the War Industries Board (WIB), was fascist in that it dictated to the business community what would be produced by the nation's industries under the banner of nationalizing the people for war. Throughout the section on Wilson, Goldberg paints a bleak picture of how America was nearly swallowed up by a type of benevolent dictatorship. Goldberg is equally repulsed by the Roosevelt years. He reminds the reader that Roosevelt was the only president to break with the tradition of George Washington by serving more than two terms. Moreover, he compares Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration with Wilson's WIB, saying that the former was modeled on the latter. Throughout these two chapters Goldberg deftly cites example after example of how these two presidents, considered great by many - Wilson for his Fourteen Points and Roosevelt for supposedly ending the Great Depression - did more than anyone up to that point to introduce socialism and fascism into American culture.

Before bringing the reader into the latter half of the twentieth century, Goldberg shifts to the decade of the 1960s. On its face, the chapter is important because it lays the groundwork for upcoming criticism on John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Unfortunately, for the reader, it is here that he provides minutia that keeps an otherwise informative and entertaining book from flowing by chronicling the histories of radical organizations such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, and the Weathermen. If one were to skip this chapter, however, one would miss the author's wry sense of humor that was disbursed throughout the book. For example, Goldberg laments the fact that one of Fidel Castro's closest compatriots, Che Guevara "...has become a chic branding tool... [representing] a disgusting indictment of...American consumer culture." (193) He goes on to say that Guevara's likeness has made its way onto shirts and even toddler onesies. Depending on one's viewpoint, Guevara could be described as a misunderstood revolutionary or a mass murderer, but he is popular with the left because he is associated with an idol of the left, Fidel Castro. He arguably killed more people than Mussolini and was as despicable as Nazi SS Chief Heinrich Himmler. Nevertheless, Goldberg wittingly asks, "Would you put a Mussolini onesie on your baby? Would you let your daughter drink from a Himmler sippy cup?" (194)

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the two presidents from 1961 to 1969, are thoroughly dissected and each given their own chapters. Johnson's "Great Society" certainly gives Goldberg plenty of fodder for blasting a program that was built upon the New Deal. No political commentator who wants to keep his conservative credentials supports Johnson's program in any way, and Goldberg lives up to the task of describing how the Great Society has been detrimental to the country.

Tying fascism to modern liberalism is the task of the remaining third of the book. Chapter Seven discusses the subject of eugenics. One of the staples of modern liberalism is the support for unfettered abortion. Margaret Sanger, the woman credited with the founding of Planned Parenthood and who is one of the heroes of the Left, "...sought to ban reproduction for the unfit and regulate reproduction for everybody else." (271) In 1939, she created the "Negro Project" where she attempted to control the black population's ability to reproduce. Her plan was to eventually allow the black race to die out. One could find similarities in her ideas and those of Hitler's Nazi Party.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the current junior senator from New York, former first lady, and recent presidential candidate, is the focus of Chapter Nine, "Brave New Village." When this book was published in 2007, she was the likely Democratic Party nominee for president. As of this writing, it does not appear that she will meet that goal. Her competitor, Barak Obama, a senator from Illinois, will take her place on the ticket. Goldberg must have been sure that she would get the nomination (Barak Obama is only mentioned on two pages) as he chronicled her history and picked apart her designs on moving the country even farther to the left. It would be a stretch to call her book, It Takes A Village, her version of Mein Kampf, but Goldberg does emphasize that part of her plan for America includes early governmental involvement with children and reeducating them in the elementary and secondary public school system, similar to the plan that Hitler used in 1930s Germany.

For the student of the period's historiography, Goldberg does an excellent job of highlighting the ways that liberal scholars have been able to slant history in a way that puts the New Left in the best light. With over fifty pages of notes and hundreds of references, his documentation is sound. He has successfully demonstrated that much of what has been accepted American history has been distorted. Students of an earlier generation were taught that Woodrow Wilson died of a broken heart because the Senate did not ratify his League of Nations. Goldberg teaches us that we nearly went down a path that changed the Constitution. Similarly, we had been taught that Roosevelt got the country out of the Great Depression. Again, we learned here that Roosevelt's initial plans were not that much different from those of Hitler and Mussolini. In Liberal Fascism, the myths are exposed and the foundation upon which modern liberal fascism has been built is shown. Goldberg, of course, is an anti-Liberal Fascist and would like to bring the country farther to the conservative side. He is saying through his book that the only way to understand how to dismantle the New Left establishment is to know how it was first put together.

i've read only part of this book,
my husband is reading it with great fervor,
and whatever he quotes from it sounds intelligent to me,
I'm coming from an ex socialist country, Hungary,
I was 19 when the socialist/comunist block got destroyed by Ronald Reagen, God Bless him for it,
and I find it quite funny how american people get crazy over this book,
all those people who are for social actvism, big goverement, carbon print taxing, they should have tried to live in any of the countries of the ex communist block, even in the last years of its exsistence....I bet they would become quite libertarian in a week...
but seriously, comon, being kicked out of a college because you have a different view on a subject, wow, well those kind of things happened in our country and in Russia, ok, there you would have gone to jail for it in the 50's, and never be able to have a BA from the 70's on,but in the USA in these years? it does not sound very liberal/fair/ nice/ people friendy/ socially sensitive to me.

This nice, new book will be revealing and thought provoking for those who will read it, and while it may not have all of its facts and linkages "technically" correct (some "big time" reviews are suggesting this) and maybe it would not earn "special honors" from the Harvard Department of Political Science as the "Most Politically Correct" book of the season, this new book makes a very important point : the so-called "Liberals" are apt to misuse power, and to trample on individual freedoms, just as brutally as the "Fascists" that we have all been trained to recognize as a clear and obvious danger to freedom and liberty. The author is taking something of a risk to put out a book like this : it tells too much about a topic that some people and groups would prefer to keep "under wraps"; so there will be some who will want to review the book and heap criticism upon it; but that is the fate of a book, or an author, when uncomfortable truths are openly and unsparingly "aired". Now, as America is seeing its so-called "Democrat" party, which at the national level is in fact captured and controlled by the Hard-Left, campaign for power, is a good time to read books like this one which will give a perspective to the reader that cannot be found in the "mainstream" press. Maybe somehow Americans quietly realize that the mainstream press is letting them down. Maybe somehow this new book will assist those Americans to get a broader perspective on the politics of our times. And when the reader has digested this nice, new book of purported fact, then he or she might also want to read a book of fiction that is equally timely, entitled THE EMPRESS PROJECT.The Empress Project

This is a book that was waiting to be written. For the longest time it seemed odd to me that Communism was placed on the left and Fascism on the right in the ideological continuum. The two systems always seemed more alike than different. In this book, the author explains why there is so much confusion on this point. The author argues, and I believe persuasively, that Communism and Fascism are not polar opposites but more like cousins. In doing so, the author goes back and examines the early history of Fascism and it ties to the Progressive movement in the U.S. The title of the book, allow provocative, is actually a phrase coined by Progressive and Fascist, H.G. Wells. The main point of the book is that the legacy of the modern day left in the U.S. is the Progressive movement which is philosophically rooted in Fascism.

The only criticisms of the book are that it was a little too academic, it jumped around with too many names/quotes/etc., and didn't flow smoothly. As a whole though, the book was well researched and a courageous effort.

I won't summarize this book since dozens of other reviewers have done so.

I will say that it is an extremely well-researched and incisive history of fascism and the left's relationship to it. I read a lot of pre-WWII fiction and was often surprised when I heard progressive-seeming characters utter fascist sounding viewpoints. Now I know why.

What keeps this book from getting 5 stars is that, in his zeal, I don't think Goldberg always consistently keeps to his definition of fascism as a "religion of the state." A few times Goldberg characterizes something as fascist because it displays an incidental quality of fascism rather than an essential one. For example, in one chapter he argues that certain films are fascist because they display Nietzschean themes, rather than because they advocate worship of and dependence on the state. While it could be argued that Nietzsch influenced fascism, he was not essential to it, or to state worship.

Despite it's flaws, however, I found this to be an excellent book that really opened my eyes to the authoritarianism of many liberal leaders.

this book exposes the truth about the left wing and the state of mind there in .there beliefs and there DBL standers.

Fascism has historically been associated with the Right, meaning an Authoritarian system of government, acting in league with corporations. In this excellent book, Jonah Goldberg examines how, in modern practice, Fascism has become a product of the New Left. This is an extremely well written and scholarly book, and I think it should be required reading for all Political Science majors. While I am not one, I am a political junkie, and enjoyed it very much.

After getting a BA in political science I can tell you that I had to sit through a professor drawing a line on the chalk board and saying "socialism in on the left and fascism is on the right" every semester and in every class. Now it never made sense to me (when exactly do libertarians, arguably the most conservative main stream party on the right, make the jump from as little government as possible to fascism??), but at the time I didn't really have the facts (or the courage) to challenge it. This book answers all of the questions I had about this issue and then some. Yes, the author has a point of view. Yes, he passionately believes in his "preconceived notion of reality." Can anyone point me to someone who doesn't? Jonah did his research and expresses his thoughts well. Everyone should read this book!

Excellent, thoughtful and damning account of the history of the Left in the US. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in defeating Communism, Socialism, Fascism and (modern) Liberals.

Fraternally,
(Mr.) Penny Nixon
Wasilla, Alaska

Dear Professor, may I speak?

When I attended an out-of-state university for one year, I was greeted with a less than enthusiastic reception by two of my professors. First was a philosophy class where I objected to the worship of Jean-Jacque Rousseau as the "god" of intellectualism, ethics, and environmentalism. I asked the professor (female) how she could give so much credibility to a man who wrote books about raising children, who advocated removing children from the home at the earliest possible moment, such as 3 years of age, to indoctrinate them into a product (proletariat) that served the "states" interests, when he had killed his own 5 children. So I was removed from the class.

My second incident occurred in a poly-science course, when I argued the political model that showed the Liberals in the center of the political spectrum, Communism on the left, Conservatives on the right with Fascism just a little further to the right. He had drawn the model on the black board. I argued that this was not correct, and I believed almost all policies used to achieve societal consolidation, i.e. Communism, Socialism, and Fascism were identical. "Only the degree of recognition of international and national borders" determined the course to government totalitarianism. I was kicked out of the class and banded from any courses in the College of Liberal Arts, forcing me to transfer back to our instate University of Idaho.

It took me until 2 years ago, after frequent consideration, to come up with a working model. And Jonah Goldberg has given me confidence and validation that my model was correct. Left-wingers are simply mouthing the propaganda of Joseph Stalin when they say that right-wingers are fascists. The "rising star" of communism, as Benito Mussolini was joyously named by Vladimir Lenin, broke the accepted communist model when the theory of borderless nations and class warfare was broken by ultra-nationalism in Mussolini's effort to unite his nation around socialist ideals. As Goldberg demonstrates, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are differentiated by the rejection or recognition of international and national borders, but the ideology and "ends" are exactly the same. A proletariat is created as a tool or "means" of the over-throw of Capitalism or other form of government to create a new society of "social justice and equality" to be controlled by the elites, experts and professors, and ideologs who understand their "needs" better than the ignorant proletariat understand themselves.

I am on my second read, and I was especially surprised at the degree of suppression that Woodrow Wilson subjected this country too. Some parts may be a little bit of a reach, but especially the foundations of the "Progressive Movement" are well outlined. It also helps me to achieve a clearer understanding of the connections between French Marxist philosopher Georges Eugene Sorel's "anarchosyndicalism" model of community and societal organizing, the "Vital Lie", the great "Myth" theories to Woodrow Wilson, and Saul Alinsky (this was not covered in the book). Excellent!

Well, if we are asked to swallow the quote in my title from Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", we can legitimately entertain the notion that American Webster Edgerly was the original Nazi, even if he was already prominent in his career when Hitler was still in knee britches. Edgerly, known to his devotees as Dr. Ralston(of Ralston Purina), was not a conventional politician, but he certainly saw himself as a revolutionary messiah. Like Hitler, he believed that he alone knew the right path for the salvation of mankind, or at least his countrymen.
He became one of the leading health gurus in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As Goldberg points out, Hitler was also very health conscious, although the stress of his warmongering ruined his health. Edgerly advocated many details in one's daily life, including proper diet, exercise, hygiene and sex. He even created what he considered the ideal language. He attempted to create a utopian rural community as a model for others to follow, although only a few people were willing to go this far.
However, like Hilter and Wilson, he was an adamant racist, advocating the castration of all-noncaucasian races in order to eliminate inferior races. He also taught his followers that they could control the thoughts of others by developing their personal magnetism, following his instructions. This, of course, was the primary means by which Hitler spread his influence before he seized Germany's military machine. Unlike Hitler, Edgerly was not interested in spreading his movement through strong arm tactics and militarism(other than castration!) However, clearly, his ultimate goal was to eliminate eveyone who didn't look rather like him and think exactly like him, which was also Hitler's basic goal.
Like Goldberg, I find that clearly distinguishing between the pragmatic policies of Fascism, State Capitalism, soviet-style Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Progressivism and various other isms of the last century that involve a high degree of group control over individual behaviour is virtually impossible. But, these various political movements can be rather easily divided into two groups: those that commonly used strong arm tactics, militarism, and dictatorial suppression to achieve their goals and those that sought to achieve their revolution peaceably by truly democratic procedures. Fascists are in one camp, liberals in the other. Thus, the term Liberal Fascism, invented by H.G. Wells, is an oxymoron. Some liberals in the 1930s considered FDR to be a slightly watered down fascist, while many conservatives considered him a slightly watered down communist. That should tell us something. Indeed, there was a well hushed up plot by some of the nation's leading tycoons to stage a march on Washington, forcing FDR to resign, replaced by a popular WWI general, who would serve as a puppet-like fascist dictator. I have long(past 50 years) considered the Stalin and Ceausescu regimes, for example, to be far more fascist(totalitarian and nationalist) than the Mussolini, Hitler or Franco regimes, for example. Membership in certain cults and organized crime syndicates provides a more fascist experience than the classic fascist regimes, if we replace the word national with identity group. Thus, Goldberg's main thesis that fascism, Soviet-style communism and extreme forms of progressivism have much in common, although possibly revolutionary compared to what most textbooks teach, should be old hat to any perceptive person who sees through this convenient compartmentalization by American historians.
The optimal amount of governmental regulation vs. individual freedom, and benevolent dictatorial vs. consensus rule will always be controversial and will change with changing social, economic, political and technological conditions. The rapid urbanization and industrialization of most Western countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, along with military and economic crises, was bound to spawn an orgy of greater governmental regulations of various aspects of society. Greater dependence upon each other at the local, national and international levels necessitates more regulations to avoid occasional anarchy, extreme poverty and concentration of power among a small oligarchy. Greater threats from foreign powers necessitates more concerted organization at the economic and military levels. Greater mobility, urbanization and divorce rates along with job insecurity necessitates greater reliance on governmental and philanthropic programs to take the place of a weakened safety net of nuclear and extended families and close neighbors. True, an unfortunate side effect of the culture of allowing governments to regulate everything, to spend a sizable fraction of the GNP and to dish out entitlements, is a tendency toward overregulation, overtaxation and entrenched bloated bureaucracies, which can be very difficult to pare down to a useful size or to eliminate when they become antiquated or so autocratic as to be counterproductive.
Goldberg's book serves to emphasize what perceptive people in the first half of the 20th century must have recognized: that pragmatic fascism, communism, socialism and progressivism share much more in common than their leaders will publicly admit. They rather remind me of the various spinter groups of Christianity, which at times have gone to war with each other, but in fact have much more in common than their doctrinaire differences. However, statements such as "Woodrow Wilson was the ...first fascist dictator" detract from the credibility of his thesis. He might have, with nearly equal justification written: "Abe Lincoln was the First Fascist Dictator". Lincoln was one of Wilson's favorite models and was hated by many Northerners as well as Southerners for his tendency to ignore the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court in attempting to squash opposition to his policies, and for his initiation of the draft and income taxes. He is considered by many Libertarians as an instigator of big government on a level with FDR(see Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln"). Others are willing to forgive Lincoln's excesses in these respects as necessary evils to accomplish his central goal of reuniting the nation by force.

The fact that a "Washington Post" writer provides a very lengthy rebuttal...not commentary, that poorly masquerades as an offical Editorial Review in this listing, is quite telling. The many truths and rational connections Mr. Goldberg has provided in this expose have rubbed more than a few nerves.

Many of extreme left vs. right, right vs. left books on the market represent nothing more than self-indulgent "tirads on parchment."
This book is different. It is relatively well researched. You will not be able it down.

Highly recommended.

A lot has been written about this book, and I'm not inclined to add much to the debate. If you read LIBERAL FASCISM as providing a grand unified theory of contemporary history you will be able to find some flaws (like most books of the genre). Yet if you read the book to get a quick overview of recent history, I think you will learn a lot. Most people don't know about the importance of eugenics in US history, how "progressive" the Nazis were, the left's infatuation with Communism (and fascism), and many other facts that are brought out in the book.

A lot has been written about this book, and I'm not inclined to add much to the debate. If you read LIBERAL FASCISM as providing a grand synthesis of contemporary history you will be able to find numerous flaws (like most books of the genre). Yet if you read the book to get a quick overview of recent history, I think you will learn a lot. Most people don't know about the importance of eugenics in US history, how "progressive" the Nazis were, the left's infatuation with Communism, and many other facts that are brought out in the book.

Goldberg's book wanders from time to time and there are parts that are hard to follow because of this. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book. Goldberg correctly identifies fascism as a left wing movement, a fact that most do not seem to recognize. He exposes the continuity of thought from the so-called progressives a century ago to the so-called progressives today. While identifying similarities between fascism over the last 100 years and today's liberals, he takes pains to insist that he is not saying that today's liberals are just like Nazis (in contrast to some of the other reviews you may read). This is a thought-provoking and enlightening book. Hopefully the skeptical will be motivated to learn the truth.

I touch on the connection between historical European liberal facism and our own political left in the United States in my newest book, Reason For Life; Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist. I encourage you to read it, not for the meager revenue it generates, but because it could appeal to many of you on either side of the aisle.

Reason For Life. Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist

Frank Cress

Liberal fascism?

It's understandable why liberals get angry when they see this book displayed. When I saw its cover and title, my first reaction to Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was to disregard it. It looked like another partisan hatchet job on liberal/progressive politics, and a tacky one at that. That impression soon disappeared, however, once I started browsing its pages. Don't let Hitler Smiley Face on the cover or its ostensibly oxymoronic title (which was actually coined by H.G. Wells back in the 1930s) fool you: LIBERAL FASCISM undoubtedly is a polemic, and not without flaws, but it's also a good book, with a startling and provocative perspective.

To give a short version to the long story behind this controversial book, Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg argues that much of modern liberalism is actually the offspring of 20th century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with both Marxism and European fascism. Throughout much of Europe the communitarian impulse expressed itself in socio-political movements that were militarist, nationalist, and often racist. In the United States this same impulse took the form of progressivism which was better suited to American culture, but no less militant in its crusading spirit, and at times just as nationalist and as racist in expression, as its fascist counterpart. The ultimate goal of American progressivism was holistic society, similar to what the writer and social critic H.G. Wells approvingly dubbed "liberal fascism." (People interested to further explore Wells' fascist/totalitarian tendencies, should read his THE SHAPE Of THINGS To COME, which speculates on a future course of world history from the 20th to the 22nd century.)

Like I mentioned, the book does have its flaws, most of them due to Goldberg's static and often deliberately simplistic ideas for what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative," and his refusal to consider these terms ever as relative signifiers, or to use them outside a 21st century American context.

Such a point brings me to Goldberg's habit of grouping all communitarianism/collectivism exclusively in the left corner. It's just not true. Goldberg ignores, for example, the fact that collectivism was at the heart of traditional Russian society, long predating Marxist and other forms of modern socialism. He makes no mention of the communistic aspirations at the heart of Christian millennialist sects like the Levellers and Diggers of mid-seventeenth century England, both groups being offshoots of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan New Model Army. Such historical phenomena don't fall neatly within the clearly drawn lines of contemporary America's liberal vs. conservative dichotomy. Neither does neopaganism, the occult or ethically-based vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism or a host of other things which fascinated nineteenth and early twentieth century European society as a whole. Occult and neopagan beliefs, in fact, were prominent within certain elements of Europe's Right, not its Left.

Closer to home, Goldberg does better work with the incipient fascism in 1930s American populism; correctly exposing, for instance, the left-wing roots of Louisiana governor Huey Long and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin. On the other hand, the omission of William Dudley Pelley, George Lincoln Rockwell, or movements like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion from a book focusing on fascist tendencies in American politics makes one suspicious. The aforementioned names and groups all were openly and proudly fascist--and all also shared origins in traditional American conservatism. By not mentioning any of these individuals or organizations it makes Goldberg look like he was cherry picking facts; ultimately this is more detrimental to the book's worth than either the title or the Smiley Hitler graphics of the cover.

Nevertheless, Goldberg still would've been better off, in the long run, choosing Orwell's "Oligarchical Collectivism" for the title.

First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.

This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.

The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.

The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.

The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.

He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.

The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.

The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.

Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.

So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demogogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.

Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.

I was genuinely interested in reading this, but he was so caught up with his fervor, talking points, and preconceived notions of reality that I couldn't get to the wonderfully researched history.

His thesis relies on his own (rather uninteresting, though mildly creative) manipulation of semantics. At best his arguments are eye-rolling. More disgracefully, he completely discounts general historic attitudes that were pervasive across party lines.

All in all, rather than being an informative piece, he just comes across as a condescending jerk who only loves the sound of his voice. The kind of guy that clears the room at a party.

How DARE you Amazon place this on my screen where I have to look at it as a RECOMMENDED book! How dare you place the image of this hateful, narrowminded, uneducated, propagandizing, hating, fearing, polarizing DETRITUS in my face! Keep this political clap trap to yourselves!