Defining the Terms -- Have it Your Way, Baby
Spencer Ackerman takes a look at Liberal Fascism and determines that Goldberg's creative definition of terms are the foundation of his whole thesis. This is what I have been arguing ever since I first caught wind of this project. Defining fascism is tricky, for amateurs and academics, something Goldberg does admit. But that doesn't mean we can ignore some very obvious traits of fascism in order to support an antithesis of "liberal fascism," which is exactly what Goldberg does. Here's how Ackerman puts it:
Fascist regimes do not impose their wills by force "or" through regulation and social pressure. They systematize violence. There isn't anything at all fascist about a neighborhood noise ordinance, and nothing at all fascist about scrunching up your noise [sic] in discomfort when someone lights a cigarette. But this is how distinctions between statism and fascism collapse, a necessary move when redefining fascism to include liberalism. If Goldberg wants to posit that statism is fascism, then he'd really better aim his Glock at George W. Bush, champion of massively expanded state power. (Though, as we'll see, Goldberg is rather soft on fascism-qua-fascism for a determined enemy of liberal fascism.)
I used to joke with friends that I'd love to open a coffee shop called "The Fascist Bean." At this cafe, customers would only be given a strict set of choices, all of which boiled down to tough-guy drip coffee, straight espresso, and absolutely no frilly drinks. Smoking would be mandatory. This "fascism" was inspired by the "Soup Nazi" character on Seinfeld, and within the confines of humor, it wasn't important for us to tease out the ridiculousness of our appellations. What Goldberg has done is to expand the Soup Nazi/Fascist Bean argument to 400 pages and describe it, memorably, as "a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care," when clearly it is anything but that. And the reason is because Goldberg isn't really interested in making an argument based on historical evidence. He is making a novel argument based on selective evidence and tailor-made definitions of terms that fit his desired result. In short, he has defined away (or ignored) the right-wing associations with fascism and instead focused on the left-wing associations. Goldberg can complain about liberal bias in the academy all he wants, but this nonsense would never be taken seriously by a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal of history.
And there you have it. As with so many conservative ideologues, Goldberg thrives off of redefining terms to suit his ideological preconceptions. The only remaining question is whether this intellectual obtuseness is deliberate or not. If deliberate, then Goldberg is simply an intellectually dishonest, ideologically-driven hack writer who is looking to make a buck off a political movement that has nourished his entire career. If not, then Goldberg really is something of a dunce, which I have been hesitant to bring up because I think it's in poor taste to question someone's intelligence (even though I have referred to several figures as "idiots" on this blog--something I'm trying to phase out of my writing) and generally isn't an argument. But honestly, what else are we to conclude from the case study of Jonah Goldberg and his tome? To further my efforts at being civil, I'll leave the insults to Ackerman: "I'm starting to think Jonah Goldberg is not an intelligent man. And I'm only on page 24."