I'm not defending Jonah Goldberg, but clearly he's using the term "Liberal" in the American sense, which dates, I think, from FDR's time. That means one who is more liberal with government largesse. The term "liberal" in the Adam Smith sense does, indeed, mean the classic laissez-faire philosophy. By the way, that's how they use the term in France. When they say "liberal" they mean relatively free-market oriented.

Given that, the title does seem a bit of a stretch. I know Mussolini started out in his political life as a socialist, but so what? Also, early on fascist parties were also egalitarian, pro-worker, and anti-capitalist. You had the red labor movement (socialist, then also communist), the black (anarchist) and the yellow (fascist). The big difference with the fascist was that they were pro-nationalist as well, as opposed to internationalist. So, yes, there will be some overlap in philosophies. Some French socialist joined Vichy for that very reason. I hope Goldberg doesn't get all of that muddled.

Also, even interpreting the term "Liberal" as Goldberg likely means it [i.e., the welfare-statish left in America], saying that American liberals are fascists is way overboard. Many may be intolerant, especially if they're actually on the far left. And that means not necessarily more or less intolerant than conservatives. But fascist?! Come on! I hate when people overuse the term "fascist." It dilutes the meaning of the word and the appreciation of what the word really meant historically.

Come on! I hate when people overuse the term "fascist." It dilutes the meaning of the word and the appreciation of what the word really meant historically.

True. I don't know if I ever will get around to reading Goldberg's book, because politically partisan books overgeneralize in one way or another.

The only generalization that makes sense to me is Virginia Postrel's dynamists vs. stasists

Postrel argues that these conflicting views of progress, rather than the traditional left and right, increasingly define our political and cultural debate. On one side, she identifies a collection of strange bedfellows: Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader standing shoulder to shoulder against international trade; "right-wing" nativists and "left-wing" environmentalists opposing immigration; traditionalists and technocrats denouncing Wal-Mart, biotechnology, the Internet, and suburban "sprawl." Some prefer a pre-industrial past, while others envision a bureaucratically engineered future, but all share a devotion to what she calls "stasis," a controlled, uniform society that changes only with permission from some central authority.

On the other side is an emerging coalition in support of what Postrel calls "dynamism": an open-ended society where creativity and enterprise, operating under predictable rules, generate progress in unpredictable ways. Dynamists are united not by a single political agenda but by an appreciation for such complex evolutionary processes as scientific inquiry, market competition, artistic development, and technological invention. Entrepreneurs and artists, scientists and legal theorists, cultural analysts and computer programmers, dynamists are, says Postrel, "the party of life."

Defining authoritarian extremists as 'stasists' seems to be a better explanation for why the extreme left and the extreme right tend to agree..

This is not something I'd care to quibble over, but Mussolini forming and being the primary intellectual and social/political impetus for the nascent fascist party and ideology during the second decade of the last century is not tantamount to someone switching political parties. Mussolini was an ardent and renown Marxist for well over a decade and formed his political instincts and some aspects of the fascist ideology as well out of his Marxist underpinnings. Certainly his political praxis stemmed from that grounding.

Jonah Goldberg is a Republican lickspittle, one of the most intellectually dishonest people in America. And that is not an ad hominem attack, it is the truth!

BTW, for details on how Somali refugees are faring in increasingly-xenophobic Minnesota, see (the facetiously titled):

'Minnesota's Own Version of "Verjudung," or How Somali Refugees Threaten Christmas In The Upper Midwest'

Michael Blaine, "Rudely Stamped"
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Michael B, I think it is generally recognized that Mussolini went from the political right to the political left, even if there was some overlap in their philosophies.

Mary, that's a very interesting dichotomy you refer to. You can add to that, in Europe, the pro-EU federalism (i.e., evolving into a single political entity) and anti-federalism, which cuts across the right-wing and left-wing parties there.

The problem is that the dichotomy, while real enough, can be taken too far, with the danger of again oversimplifying. There are still real differences between left-wing and right-wing intellectual traditions and current mindsets. The thing is that both sides are not really monochrome. The "right" includes neo-fascists and libertarians, Moral Majority types and free-marketeers, people for US assertion abroad and isolationists. The left could also include social libertarians, Marxists, democratic socialists, social democrats, liberation theologists, and believers in various specific causes.

Each of these currents grows out of a left-wing or right-wing tradition or sensibility, but they differ markedly from each other, and so can fall on opposite sides of various questions of the day. The pining for an agrarian past is a deep-seated part of monarchists and other conservatives in Europe, but that's also true for left-wing radicals in the German Green party.

Also, Postrel elides free markets with those who seek dynamism. That's valid up to a point, especially when compared to a command economy. But many progressives would say that 20th-century moves towards better working conditions and better educational systems, and an evolution towards a more just judicial system, among other social improvements, also represent change as opposed to stasis, and would also represent the unleashing of the creative potential of the populace. That's what the New Deal and the Great Society were all about. That's what the Western European welfare states, established after WW2, were all about. That was dynamism, that was improvement. Another point: The creativity of free enterprise is lost on Latin Americans who have lived under the yoke of nasty regimes propped up by the US government and by multinationals like United Fruit.

The best way is to see Postrel's dichotomy not as a replacement for the left vs. right divide, but as a sort of cross-cutting cleavage, overlaying but not eliminating the left-vs.-right division.

I think you may have improved things in her analysis by identifying the FAR right and the FAR left with stasis. But don't forget, even that only applies to our era, but not for all time. Remember that a hallmark of Stalin's rule was aggressive industrialization and modernization (as was possible) in the USSR. Come to think of it, even Nazism was credited, early on, with making lots of positive changes and for dynamizing German society.

Another thing, remember that not all change is good. Mistakes are made, whether planned or not. If government planners are not omniscient, neither is this thing we call the "market." Both are better for some things than they are for others. Suburban sprawl was a mistake, SUV's are a mistake, the lack of a energy conservation policy for the last two decades was a mistake. Underspending on schools, health care, and infrastructure have all been mistakes.

Let's not just replace one over-simplification with another. There are elements of stasis or dynamism that please or displease various currents within the left or the right.

Remember that a hallmark of Stalin's rule was aggressive industrialization and modernization (as was possible) in the USSR. Come to think of it, even Nazism was credited, early on, with making lots of positive changes and for dynamizing German society.

Change and dynamism aren't as important as the issue of state control. As Postrel said of the stasists:

Some prefer a pre-industrial past, while others envision a bureaucratically engineered future, but all share a devotion to what she calls "stasis," a controlled, uniform society that changes only with permission from some central authority.

The positive changes that were promised were only made with permission from a central authority. And of course, the central authority didn't live up to their promises, because they weren't accountable. And they killed a lot of people, for the usual reason - because no one stopped them.

Another thing, remember that not all change is good. Mistakes are made, whether planned or not. If government planners are not omniscient, neither is this thing we call the "market." Both are better for some things than they are for others. Suburban sprawl was a mistake, SUV's are a mistake, the lack of a energy conservation policy for the last two decades was a mistake. Underspending on schools, health care, and infrastructure have all been mistakes.

History does prove that authoritarian regimes that are not accountable to voters will cause great damage - to the population, to the environment, to the surrounding nations...

History doesn't prove that suburban sprawl or SUVs were a "mistake". We may not like suburban sprawl, but massive decentralization is a defense of sorts against terrorist attacks. SUVs are not a mistake if you live in the large sections of the country with dirt roads. Spending on schools doesn't guarantee that students will learn if you spend on administrators rather than teachers. And, despite the prevalence of dirt roads in the west, America has the best roads worldwide. Our energy use isn't efficient, but at least our government isn't killing peasants because they won't give up their land for wind farms, as they are in China.

A government for the people, by the people will make mistakes, but it's always wiser than a state run by powerful elites and bureaucrats.

I agree with you there, Mary. Better to have mistakes made by an accountable government than by a tyranny. But our government has often been less accountable than it might have been. And add to that the power of big corporations. We have abuse of power here, too, though not on the scale of the Soviet Union, obviously.

Frankly, basing the division based on state control only is problematic, as even many people on the left who are against capitalist-rooted dynamism are also against state control.

There are several axis here along which many of these opinions formulate: big versus small state sector, big versus small state control, rapid changes in technology with minimal oversight versus the opposite, rapid increases in social policies versus "small government," and so on.

And as for spending on schools not guaranteeing a good education...depriving them of funds will almost always guarantee a bad one. Of course, you don't want to WASTE the money, true. But don't conflate adequate support of public schools, health care, etc. as, by definition, waste. I remember that saying: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Whether suburban sprawl helps us in terms of security is something I couldn't even hazard a guess at. It doesn't help in many other ways. For details, check out the book Suburban Nation, by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck.

And yes, SUV's are a mistake. We should have more fuel-efficient cars for those dirt roads. It's too bad that we haven't better researched alternative fuels since the 1970s, when we realized our vulnerability. Whether done by people living in the woods who depend on their vehicles or by city dwellers, our wasteful use of energy is hurting.

Yes, I understand it is "generally recognized" as such. Many things in history are "generally recognized," but the accuracy of that recognition and to what effect is rather the point. Likewise, that they had "some overlap" is a momentous understatement. If you're not going to probe beyond "general recognitions" then there's little point. Never mind.