Fascism, Left and Right
Goldberg has in the past treated libertarians with disdain, but here he offers an analysis of fascism that libertarians will find familiar. Goldberg has been influenced by John T. Flynn's comparison of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal with Italian fascism; and he cites Friedrich Hayek with respect. He has learned from Murray Rothbard on the progressives as well. (He at one point remarks, "if libertarianism could account for children and foreign policy, it would be the ideal political philosophy."
Although Liberal Fascism contains much important information, its many mistakes require that it be used with extreme caution. Jonah Goldberg should acquire a more accurate knowledge of history before he presumes to instruct others. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (8)
Niccolo Adami
Account for children and foreign policy...? What?
What's to account for? Children are human beings with individual rights and foreign policy is wrong in all ventures - as it assumes nation-states to work around.
Published: February 25, 2008 9:45 AM
George Gaskell
Account for children and foreign policy
People are frequently led to believe that without the almighty State, children everywhere would instantly experience relentless beatings, forced prostitution and God knows what else.
As though the State has such a great track-record with children, considering the gladiator academies that they State calls "public schools."
And by "foreign policy," he means "war."
Published: February 25, 2008 10:43 AM
Curt Howland
> And by "foreign policy," he means "war."
I wish more people would be honest about it and just say "war".
Renaming the "war" department to the "department of defense" was a crude effort at misdirection.
But then, isn't "institutional dishonesty" just another word for government?
Published: February 25, 2008 1:40 PM
David Bratton
What's to account for? Children are human beings with individual rights...
I am assuming Goldberg meant unborn children. There is disagreement among libertarians as to their rights.
Published: February 25, 2008 2:23 PM
Dylan
I think by mentioning children, he meant that children can't be expected, like adult individuals, to make responsible decisions and take care of themselves, thus the need for laws concerning underage sex, the driving age, the drinking age, etc.
Published: February 25, 2008 3:53 PM
lester
" H.G. Wells in a speech at Oxford in 1932 called for a "Liberal Fascism"; and Rexford Tugwell, a leading member of Roosevelt's Brain Trust, said in 1934, "I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary…. Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has. But he has the press controlled so that they cannot scream lies at him daily"
Leo ....ahem.. Strauss also subscribed to this view of mussolini as the "good" alternative fascist
Published: February 25, 2008 4:06 PM
Bruce Koerber
The definition given: 'Leftists wish to reconstruct society along socialistic lines; fascists glorify the nation and militarism.' Sound familiar?
Is there any question why politicians (interventionists) are 'abolished' in the age we are entering?
The transition period will be traumatic, I am sure.
Published: February 25, 2008 4:44 PM
Paul Marks
Mussolini was a dedicated socialist, indeed Marxist, long before the First World War - so there is no need for war to be used as explination for his economic policy ideas. Or for the support that so many New Dealers showed for these ideas.
As for the modern United States:
George Walker Bush already showed before even 9/11 that he was a man interested (no doubt, for what he believed were good reasons) in making government bigger not smaller.
For example, the Medicare extention and "no-child--left-behind" were supported by President Bush when he was still in favour of a less interventionist policy in the Middle East.
So again, war is not the key factor.
What matters concerning someone's economic policy is their opinion on economic policy.
This should be obvious.
Published: February 26, 2008 9:25 AM