UPDATE: So this was a stupid idea. Obviously I've left myself open to criticism since I admit outright that I haven't read the book. Also, calling this critique "definitive" was supposed to be a joke, obviously not a very good one. So, if anyone wants to comment on the specific points below, be my guest. Why I wanted to get this out of my system and make it public is for me to figure out.

That is, without having read it myself cover to cover. Despite this, enough clips, interviews, and reviews have been published to examine the major flaws of Jonah Goldberg's revisionist history. Some have asked why bother engaging such silly arguments in the first place. I think that's valid, so let me explain why. I don't personally take offense, as a liberal, to being called a fascist. That's Goldberg's reason for writing his book. I think fascism is an endlessly fascinating topic in political history precisely because of its novelty--nothing like fascism existed before the 20th century or after it with the same potency. To see fascism treated so cavalierly to score cheap political points while filling Goldberg's coffers disturbs me. After all, Goldberg and I agree on one thing: fascism is a bad thing. We ought to take proper measures to avoid its return as a viable political option. But Goldberg isn't interested in that; in fact, he's arguing that today's liberals are fascism's intellectual heirs! And doesn't that suggest we are as close to fascism now as we were in fascism's heyday? I can't shake the sense that Goldberg's frequent complaints that his critics don't understand or haven't completely read his book are really just a cop-out. After all, what book review refutes a book page by page, claim by claim? Often book reviewers will admit to having skimmed or selectively read the work they are supposed to review. No one is going to refute the innumerable errors of fact and reasoning in Liberal Fascism, I reckon, so why not point to the obvious failures of the book which can be gleaned from passages, interviews, reviews and other secondary sources that reveal the nature of the work? That said, there are three major errors I have observed, and one minor worth discussing. I do intend to look at the book in the near future, as I will have access to a review copy shortly, and I promise to correct any errors I make here.

A minor criticism of Liberal Fascism, then, is that it doesn't take its subject seriously, despite the author's entreaties to the contrary. And truth be told, many of the criticisms made against LF are minor ones; arguments that work against it on a meta-level, such as against the author personally. There are, however, major and fatal objections one can make against the book's central contentions, the most glaring of which is that it doesn't defend a thesis (see point 1). These major objections to Liberal Fascism serve to support the minor critiques, but without further ado, the major flaws.

Point 1: Liberal Fascism does not have a thesis because it does not take seriously the implications of its evidence

In a recent interview, Goldberg described the implications of his book thusly:

No, no. I mean, I try to reject that kind of thing ... I don't believe that liberals are Nazis; I believe that if Nazism came to the United States it is entirely possible that liberals would be at the forefront of the battle to stop it. So would conservatives. I'm not trying to do any argument ad Hitlerum in this book.

But what I am trying to do, at least in the chapter that you're talking about, is show how -- [take] Robert Proctor, who wrote an award-winning, widely esteemed book called "The Nazi War on Cancer." He points out that this organic food movement, the whole-grain bread operation, the war on cancer, the war on smoking, that these things were as fascist as death camps and yellow stars. They were as central to the ideology of Nazism as the extermination of the Jews. Now, that is not the same thing. And I want to be really clear about this: That is not the same thing as saying that banning smoking is as morally disgusting and reprehensible as trying to wipe out the Jewish people. You can say that something is as much part and parcel of an ideology and not say that it is as evil.

So, if smoking bans, organic and vegetarian diets, etc. are merely similarities between liberals and Nazis, then why bring them up as examples? Early in our education we all learned how to write a simple argumentative essay. The format went something like this: Introduction, thesis, evidence (three paragraphs minimum), and conclusion. Goldberg presents what appears to be evidence--similarities between historical fascists and liberal fascists--and then tells us that no, that doesn't mean liberals are Nazis. This pattern occurs throughout the book. Eventually we have to ask, what argument is Goldberg making? What is his thesis? We have to assume, given that the title of his book has always been--changing sub-titles notwithstanding--Liberal Fascism, that he is arguing that liberals are fascists, or more precisely, to quote him, that liberals are the intellectual heirs of fascism. Ergo, shouldn't we regard action by historical fascists as evidence that the same action on behalf of liberals is evidence of their fascist tendencies? No, Goldberg says, they are not morally equivalent. So again we must ask, what's the point of bringing these things up? What's the thesis? And without a strong thesis, Liberal Fascism is not an argument; it is a compendium of similarities that lead to an obvious conclusion--liberals are fascists--and then pulls the rug out from under us by telling us that no, liberals are not actually fascists. At the most elementary level of argument, at the highest level of conceptualization, LF is incoherent. It does not wish to strongly defend what should be its thesis, and that is fatal.

Point 2: Liberal Fascism actually criticizes collective totalitarianism and does not provide a satisfying definition of fascism qua fascism

The second major conceptual error LF makes is that it argues against liberalism qua fascism by criticizing its tendency towards socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism and big brother, big government welfare. I have repeatedly pointed out that fascism is a style of totalitarianism, and if Jonah Goldberg had written a book entitled Liberal Totalitarianism, my only critique would be that it is derivative (see point 4). However, Goldberg--no doubt for polemical reasons--chose to include the f-word and thus be "provocative," enhancing his sales numbers and ensuring a high ranking on Amazon.com and hopefully, he pines, on the New York Times best-seller list. Nevertheless, Goldberg's inability to look at fascism as a phenomenon unto itself or as a manifestation of totalitarianism seriously cripples his argument. One review of LF noted this analytical error:

Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."

And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate.

Goldberg would be on more solid ground if he had simply provided an exhaustive definition of fascism. Instead he has defined it, as the review notes, as simply all that he (and contemporary American conservatism) disagrees with. I have argued before that sloppy, self-serving definitions of loaded political terms such as fascism only illustrate that the author is tailoring his definitions to conform to his conclusions. But that does not mean that one cannot generate their own definition of fascism--it just needs to be more thorough. Goldberg has failed to do this not only because it would undermine his argument, but also because it doesn't even fit his argument! He isn't, essentially, arguing against fascism as a specific political movement, he is simply adopting the term because it offends--the very reason he supposedly set out to write his revisionist history in the first place! And worse, his arguments don't even seriously link liberalism to fascism, they link liberalism to totalitarianism. But Goldberg's analysis is only skin-deep. He needs the fascist moniker precisely because his argument is not original (see point 4).

Point 3: Liberal Fascism purposely ignores counterfactual evidence, particularly that the main feature of fascism is its illiberalism

Many reviewers of Liberal Fascism have pointed out that Goldberg is not a trained historian and that that disqualifies him from doing serious historical revisionism. I agree to a point, but arguments should be based on the merits, not pedigree. Sadly, LF fails this basic test as well. It is strikingly obvious to even the most casual student of fascism that Goldberg has consciously (or unconsciously) ignored all previous research into the phenomenon in order to argue instead for a pet thesis (and even then, not forcefully--see point 1). There is a reason, after all, why gallons of ink have been spilled in the 80+ years since fascism became a recognizable political movement--it defied all previously known forms of political organization. It was and remains an entirely novel political movement. Goldberg does not reference this copious body of work that has endeavored to understand the fascist phenomenon. Rather, we are expected to yield to Goldberg's supposedly brilliant insight that, despite all that has been written to the contrary, fascism is really a product of liberalism. In actuality we are yielding to Goldberg's intellectual laziness. Does he seriously engage the decades of analysis that tell us fascism is antithetical to liberalism? No. Instead he reminds us that the professional historian's obvious Marxist bias has tainted all previous research into the phenomenon:

There are a lot of historians who get fascism basically right. There are a lot of historians who don't. I think the Marxists have been part and parcel of a basic propaganda campaign for a very long time, but there are plenty of historians who understand what fascism was and are actually quite honest about it.

To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.

And this is where the argument about Goldberg's credentials becomes relevant. To say Mussolini was a lifelong socialist ignores fascism as a phenomenon unto itself. And if fascism is really just an epiphenomenal form of socialism, then why not write a book called Liberal Socialism? To reiterate point 1, why is fascism even relevant? What is Goldberg's argument? Add to this his jaw-dropping claim that "the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I" and the relevance of Goldberg's scholarship becomes glaring. The very term "fascism" was coined by Mussolini! It was derived from the ancient Roman fasces, in a throwback to revitalizing the glory of ancient Rome. Does Goldberg even know what he's talking about? Does he even know the basic history of fascist Italy? In another part of the same interview, this telling exchange occurred:

You've talked about Mussolini remaining on the left and remaining a socialist, and in your book you've got a lot of quotes from the 1920s about that, but I'm wondering -- how does that fit in with what he wrote and said later, especially "The Doctrine of Fascism" in 1932?

I'd need to know specifically what he wrote in "The Doctrine of Fascism." It's been about three years since I've read it.

If Goldberg were a historian, he could never get Liberal Fascism past a peer review. The standards for publishing scholarly work are very high. It is not enough to have a new argument; it must also surpass or enhance all conventional wisdom in the field. But Goldberg is not an academic. He is a political writer who has made a novel argument without considering the body of evidence that argues against his thesis (if he even has one--another prerequisite for scholarly work). It isn't hyperbolic to say that this is a fatal flaw: by ignoring the major counterfactual to his thesis, namely that fascism has historically and unanimously been understood as antithetical to liberalism, he undermines his own thesis--that fascism is exclusively a product of the political left. I am forced to use the term "exclusively" because Goldberg does not provide examples of historical fascisms that originate on the historical right. If he did, he wouldn't have an argument; his book would merely be a series of coincidences pointing toward no conclusion. By ignoring this very important counterfactual Goldberg has rendered the meaning of "fascism" relative. Now, anything can be considered fascist under Goldberg's criteria. This is particularly ironic given that Goldberg's motivation for writing his book was to counter the ugly rhetoric from some on the left over the years to paint anyone on the right as a "fascist." All Goldberg has done is replace the hyperbole and inaccuracy of calling a conservative a fascist with calling a liberal a fascist. This is barely above a schoolyard taunt. It's embarrassing.

Point 4: Liberal Fascism is not a novel argument

This is a minor criticism of Liberal Fascism, but a telling one. As I discussed above in point 2, the bulk of Goldberg's argument is against the totalitarian tendencies of liberalism; mislabeling this as "fascism" just makes his book "edgy." But the argument that political liberalism leads to totalitarianism has not only been made decades before Goldberg was born, but has been made repeatedly, more distinctly, and far better than he could ever dream. Since Goldberg is a figure in the contemporary conservative movement with obvious intellectual pretensions, I have to assume that he is familiar with the basic contours and genealogy of the movement that has benefited his career. But to regard Liberal Fascism with even the most basic familiarity of the conservative intellectual movement is to witness old arguments resurrected in an increasingly less convincing fashion. I won't attempt to date the first conservative critique of big government liberalism, but surely a few crucial names in the postwar (and earlier) come up: Albert Jay Nock, James Burnham, Richard Weaver, and of course, Friedrich Hayek. These thinkers contemplated the rise of the welfare state at the cost of the individual. Decreasing autonomy and control over one's life--not to mention the dehumanization--coming at the expense of bureaucracies deciding how societies should organize themselves. And certainly in the context of the Second World War, one could hardly dismiss such criticisms. The United States witnessed a dramatic rise in the ubiquity, power and influence of the federal government between the dawn of the 20th century and the end of WWII. Paramount on the minds of these thinkers was whether the centralized state would continue after the war effort had wound down. Hayek in particular articulated the economic costs of this centralization, and made the most explicit link between economic freedom and political freedom. Indeed, while Hayek considered himself a classical liberal rather than a "libertarian," he nevertheless distinguished himself from "conservatism," which he considered so fundamentally opposed to change that its intransigence endeared it more to the socialists than to the liberals.

The Road to Serfdom, Hayek's most famous work, made the observation that the collectivism of Stalin's regime and Hitler's were flip sides of the same coin. Later political analysts, notably Hannah Arendt and George Orwell, would note the basic similarities between National Socialism and Stalinism. The difference lay only in their official propaganda. So whereas the fascism of the Nazis emphasized ultra-nationalist, authoritarian father/hero worship--with the unmistakable stench of racial superiority pervading the entire regime--the Soviets only varied in who their false idols were. Lenin lay in state in Kremlin for decades while statuary, art and literature (propaganda) romanticizing Stalin outpaced the deceased Bolshevik founder. Purity became just as obsessive, while a class of people--the proletariat--were elevated above all else and a pagan religion--Marxism--excommunicated traditional religious authority, often violently. Antisemitism was rife after the Bolshevik revolution as all potential contenders--or threats--to power were literally purged. Political enemies of both the Nazis and Soviets were exterminated, and both were guilty of nothing. The horror of these two regimes, where the state was omnipresent and supreme, necessitated a new label. It wasn't merely Nazism or fascism or socialism or Stalinism--it was totalitarianism. And all the flavors were just that--flavors. The only meaningful difference, if meaningful at all, was that one was tinged with the political right, and the other was tinged with the political left. But both were far from the liberalism or conservatism that preceded them.

Liberal Fascism ignores everything I have just laid out. Goldberg chooses a couple regimes, the Nazis and the Italian fascists, finds a few substantive and many superficial similarities, and draws a broad conclusion--fascism originated from ideas on the political left. Except that he is really talking about the broader phenomenon of totalitarianism. The only reason totalitarianism and fascism are both antithetical to liberalism is because they are the same phenomenon, keeping in mind that fascism is just a totalitarian style, just as Stalinism was. But these points have all been made before. Goldberg's argument is not novel, it is incomplete. It chooses bits of historical fact that support his weak thesis and ignores everything else. It is quite literally not a work of history, it is a compendium of events which form a pattern that only Goldberg can see. Goldberg has been mocked for once uttering that Liberal Fascism is "a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care." The mockery is warranted. Goldberg's argument is not serious, it is not thoughtful, and most of all, it has been made with greater detail and care than his book could ever hope to achieve. For him to suggest otherwise can only suggest unbelievable ego or breathtaking ignorance.

Postscript

In the end, the worst thing about Liberal Fascism is not that it offends, but that it does not understand what contemporary liberalism is all about. Nor does Goldberg make any attempt to do so. The draconian measures taken by Wilson during WWI, for instance, are cited by Goldberg as an example of the essentially authoritarian--and hence, fascist--nature of liberalism. Why, then, are such incidents reported by men of the left like Howard Zinn? Zinn's antipathy to authoritarianism is palpable, and yet he's an old-school communist (i.e. a collectivist fascist, by Goldberg's criteria). Goldberg can't account for anecdotes like this because he is not engaged in serious historical inquiry. He just wants examples that support his thesis--but not too much! After all, he doesn't want anyone accusing him of accusing liberals of being Nazis! Wherever would they get that idea?

So not only do I write all this to preserve the integrity of terms like fascism, but also to preserve the integrity of liberalism. In the 75 years since Roosevelt co-opted the term to describe his new political coalition, liberalism has been under assault from opponents of modernity, and opponents of the centralized state. The question regarding the latter is whether our constitutional arrangements and basic American political conceptions are powerful enough to resist the totalitarian temptation. I believe that they are. But the threat always looms. That threat is illiberalism, and illiberalism has manifested itself most dangerously as fascism. Liberals like Orwell--who were far closer to socialism than any relevant liberal in America today--were willing to fight and die for what they believed was a liberal order; they fought specifically against fascists. These days, there really aren't any fascists around who pose a great threat to us. It's true that the authoritarian tendencies of the Bush administration suggest a lawlessness whose next stop is fascism but we're hardly there yet--we're not even close in my opinion. And despite the specific abuses of civil liberties and all of the general abuses since the advent of the "war on terror," Bush will not be president after January 2009. If we were truly living under a fascist regime, we wouldn't even have elections anymore.

Yet the term "fascism" has been abused for so long that some effort must be made to rescue it from the relativist ghetto it now inhabits. Jonah Goldberg imagines that he is doing just this, but as I've demonstrated above, he's only done it to score points for his team. Perhaps it is because he senses that his own political movement--which is authoritarian but hardly fascist--is entering a long twilight. Perhaps it is because he cynically wants to cash in one last time before the mockery becomes all consuming. Perhaps he sincerely wants to defend conservatives from the verbal assaults of ignorant leftists. Who knows. But if Goldberg was serious about telling the truth about fascism, he wouldn't have written Liberal Fascism--he would have argued against it.