...fascists favored big business...

Or, rather, big business favors fascists. Money to get power and power to protect the money.
abb1 | 01.18.08 - 3:46 pm | #

What's really disgusting is that it's Krugman who's dismissed as an extremist -- when in actuality, he's pretty close to the center of any realistic political spectrum -- almost as though being too "one-sided" about Bush amounts to a betrayal of proper liberalism.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 01.18.08 - 9:13 pm | #

I hate it when Krugman is called left, including by himself. He's center-center, AFAIC. I can accept center-left, but not left.
John Emerson | Homepage | 01.18.08 - 9:30 pm | #

Goldberg's argument:

a) Fascism uses expanded government to reshape society.
b) Liberals want to expand government to reshape society.
Ergo, c) Liberals are fascists.

The syllogism is false because he misunderstands the identifying features of fascism. Fascism is violent coercion by a totalitarian government to bring about morally deficient ends. Without violent coercion, totalitarianism, and moral deficiency, there is no fascism.

Since Goldberg's basic argument is flawed, all that remains of his book is a smear campaign against leftists. The question now is whether or not Goldberg recognizes that his argument is false. If he doesn't, he's a fool; if he does, he's an ass. He might be both.

A more interesting argument, which Goldberg is probably not qualified to make, would have been to directly critique the left's reliance on government to effect positive social change. No one can fault common leftist goals (equal rights, standards of living, etc.) as "morally deficient." The productive debate is not found between American leftists and neoconservatism, but between but between humanitarian leftists and their humanitarian libertarian counterparts.
Ron Paul | 01.18.08 - 9:50 pm | #