---
So let's get right into it, shall we? In a recent entry on his blog at the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg examined what he and many commentators see as a particularly disturbing and ever-more-pervasive aspect of the American right: ideological hallucination?
"One of the signs that a political movement may be approaching terminal decline is when its more excitable elements begin to see “fascism” where none exists."
-HH
The short article, in its necessary abridged way, examines several instances in which either the left or the right (depending which end of the spectrum was most desperate, most endangered, most hopeless in its monolithic entrenchment) have employed what is essentially an unfounded and incoherent smear tactic: to label one's opponents as sympathizers with one of the most abhorrent political systems ever known to man, fascism. Now, we all know the old history lesson of why Nazi Germany was, in fact, not quite fascist at all and how Mussolini was the true fascist in WWII Europe. Still, the fact of the matter is that most Americans, especially the earlier in the twentieth century you look, were frightened by even the glimmer of connection between a political movement within their country and the foreign barbarism understood to be embodied by fascism: holocausts, pervasive secret police, corruption, etc.
As Hertzberg clearly demonstrates (and it isn't exactly the hardest thing to illustrate), none of the elements of the right or the left whom were accused of these fascist ties or views were actually fascists. Some may have held extreme views, of this there is no doubt. But the plain truth is that these accusations were blatant lies, products of desperation and despair over the incoherence and unsustainability of their own movements. And those who hurled these accusations at their opponents were, at best, marginal within their movements...
That is, until now. Let me emphasize: this is not an attack on the right. This, my dear readers, is but an observation. An editor of the National Review, conservatism's flagship publication, is a very influential person within the American right. A former consultant in the Reagan White House and an active member of a right-wing think tank might be seen as a natural ideological compass for the Republican Party, as it seemingly gropes blindly at the legacy of the eighties, already tainted and slipping quickly. Yet, these figures have a dirty little secret. Except it's not a secret, just dirty. And little, not in its importance but in its likelihood of success.
Jonah Goldberg writes a regular blog for the National Review Online. Here is its subtle header:
In his so-called response to Hertzberg, posted on his Liberal Fascism blog, Goldberg attacked Hertzberg for not examining the liberals in the Democratic Party's past who have been associated with fascism. And, just like that, Mr. Goldberg, a guru for right-wingers across the country, reverted back to the same old, same old. Instead of confronting Hertzberg's clearly legitimate claims of dishonesty and misdirection, Goldberg delves into the same antiquated smears that his partisan forefathers might have used against any other Democratic Party incarnation of the last century.
It's a tragedy, of course, but only for Goldberg and his cohorts. If the only way a right-wing academic (say, Michael Ledeen, aforementioned Reagan White House groupie and "Freedom Scholar" at the infamous American Enterprise Institute) can critique social democratic activism of the Obama variety is by comparing it to Mussolini's Third Way, we need a new opposition, period. And my guess is, we'll get one. The substance of right has been consumed by a cancer from within and now, unfortunately for the Republicans, it's starting to show on its seedy exterior.
[This doesn't mean we can let your guard down; some of those out of power in Washington now, still pull strings elsewhere. And they think we, the people, are weak, that the phrase itself, as it reads on our Declaration of Independence, is only a pacifying myth for the masses.]
It was time that liberated the terms "liberal" and "socialism" from their dreaded status a decade ago. And it is time that has made us understand both the evils of fascism and the rarity of it within our political mainstream. Finally, we, the people, will not be deceived. Not by this, the oldest trick in the book of partisan hackery.
Mr. Goldberg needs to learn some new tricks. Or find a new book.
4 comments:
Goldberg is merely repeating the argument of Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. The book convincingly demonstrates that Fascism - far from being an outcome of "hypercapitalism" or, in Hayek's world, liberalism (before the term was appropriated by American socialists) - is actually a competing strain of socialism.
Goldberg is not saying any American "liberal" in particular is a fascist, he is merely saying that the ideas of state solutions which they profess are the ideological foundation of fascism.
I would also posit that if Mr. Hertzberg's rule is to be believed and applied as a sort of political Godwin's law, then the left would be on the decline in America (unfortunately not the case). I think you would find rather more American "liberal" rank and file who viscerally react to the right as a bunch of fascist pigs than conservative pundits who draw a historical connection between the socialistic ideas of the left and fascist policy.
I beg to differ, Zach. Sure, just as there are conservatives out there who are calling the Democrats communists, so there are plenty of partisan leftists who still indulge in that most pointless of sixties political relics: calling conservatives fascists. Still, you can't possibly be arguing that this is anywhere near as important or substantial as an editor of the National Review having a blog called Liberal Fascism or a former Reagan consultant comparing the New Deal (and, by obvious extension, any large future recovery effort by the Obama administration) to Mussolini's Third Way policies, which were corporatist and fascist. Whether or not it's an ironic libertarian inside joke or not, the fact is Mr. Goldberg's blog and Mr. Ledeen's words are both meant to link the left in this country with an ideology that does not correlate to it. You must see how this is political dishonesty at some of its worst.
While you're right of course in your statement that people often use and believe ridiculous hyperbolic analogies when at a disadvantage, this is by no means a Republican phenomenon. A White House press release denouncing Rush Limbaugh (who is an idiot) is hardly the kind of unifying politics Obama was elected for, and Republicans in general are accused of being unreasonable: "I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas," referring to Limbaugh's hope that Obama's economic policy fails.
A less recent, if telling example is Obama's assertion in early March that the fundamentals of our economy are "sound." During the campaign in a debate, McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were "solid." Joe Biden's response:
"I believe that's why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." That, "We've made great progress economically" during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn't run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain." (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/biden_uncorks_tough_populist_h.php)
This method of changing the issue and arguing something that nobody would disagree with is hardly new, and it is exactly the type of underhanded, unnecessary argument you are talking about. But everyone does it, and it's very hard to combat, so don't expect to see it going away soon.
--Chris
The question isn't which type of fascist name calling is more important. It's clear that a writer for the National Review has more standing in the political discourse than the everyman former hippie. What I meant to convey is that the argument of Mr. Goldberg is more nuanced than the simple aspersions of the great masses.
To boil it down: there is an ideological linkage between the mindsets that led to the government interventionism of today and the fascist movements of yesteryear. There is a tendency to label fascism as a movement of the far right, and in America classically liberal (the kind of liberal fascists didn't like) policies are generally on the right. Due to the confusion in verbiage, I hardly think it is intellectual dishonesty to clarify that fascism resides squarely on the government interventionist wing of the political divide.
I'll concede the point that Goldberg's title could have better insulated itself from the charge of desperate name calling (what with emoticon Hitler and whatnot), but I'll chalk that one up to the realities of selling books.
Post a Comment