If it weren’t for counter-examples, some people wouldn’t have any examples at all

by John Holbo on April 23, 2012

Jonah Goldberg finds further confirmation of his views (the whole liberal fascist thing – you remember) in a 1932 Atlantic article. I must admit, I braced myself before clicking, expecting to learn that, yes, someone argued, back then, that Hitler was just FDR on stilts, or FDR was mere Hitler-lite. Turns out the author in question made the familiar and sensible point that Hitler wasn’t a socialist in any leftist sense, pace Goldberg.

But it’s true: ‘Nazi’ is short for ‘National Socialist’. So there’s that.

{ 117 comments }

1

ponce 04.23.12 at 8:35 am

When all you’ve got is a hammer…

2

Geoffrey de ste. croix 04.23.12 at 8:47 am

But it’s true: ‘Nazi’ is short for ‘National Socialists’. So there’s that.

Is Mr Goldberg also aware that Bombay duck is not duck?

3

maidhc 04.23.12 at 8:55 am

It’s like we’re moving back in time. Woodrow Wilson is already going up on the dartboard.

4

GiT 04.23.12 at 9:51 am

I give sweetbreads to my vegetarian friends all the time. I still don’t understand why they complain.

5

Davis X. Machina 04.23.12 at 10:21 am

When all you’ve got is a hammer…

…everything looks like your forehead.

6

Platonist 04.23.12 at 11:23 am

And it it wasn’t for disappointment, I wouldn’t have any appointments.

7

Freshly Squeezed Cynic 04.23.12 at 11:49 am

He objects to stock companies and stresses the value of personal ownership

Ah, yes, the famous socialist concern with personal ownership.

8

marcel 04.23.12 at 11:57 am

freshly squeezed cynic: the value of personal ownership was the reason for the slave labor camps! And but for the national socialists, the benefits of personal ownership would have been spread more widely, just as in the US before the Civil War.

9

rf 04.23.12 at 12:56 pm

A couple of years ago the history news network held a symposium/intervention to try and talk Goldberg down of the ledge. Needless to say he completely missed the point:

“I’m not sure what prompted the decision to tackle my book now….I suspect that one reason for this discussion is that the book is starting to catch on in academia itself.”

Goldberg has all of the characteristics, and attractiveness, of a self-absorbed drunk (speaking in categorical certainties, obsessing over inane bullshit, expecting his insecurities to be your primary concern) Sometimes you just have to walk away.

Or to take of the kiddy gloves and tell him in no uncertain terms, look Jonah just shut the f$$k up, I’ve had enough. You have no idea how tiresome this has become. God help me if you bring it up once more….

10

Watson Ladd 04.23.12 at 1:42 pm

Hitler believed in the need for the government to subordinate all classes to the nation. This was very close to FDR’s economic policy as well. The major difference was that FDR did not have a campaign of nationalism and irredentism, and that the National Recovery Administration was ruled unconstitutional. Hitler was also far more anti-capitalist, at least in the early propaganda of the Nazi party. Both capitalism and socialism were called Jewish plots.

11

Walt 04.23.12 at 2:07 pm

Okay, do you guys hire Watson as the inept “other side” to all of your posts, so that you look better? I can’t think of any other plausible explanation.

12

Gene O'Grady 04.23.12 at 2:22 pm

Is there a list of presidents, prime ministers, kings queens and popes who didn’t believe that all classes should be subordinate to the nation? Sounds a bit like why the North fought the civil war.

13

christian_h 04.23.12 at 2:26 pm

at least in the early propaganda of the Nazi party

That “at least” is doing quite a lot of work there Watson.

14

bexley 04.23.12 at 2:29 pm

The major difference was that FDR did not have a campaign of nationalism and irredentism

or exterminating the Jews. I’d say thats a pretty major difference.

Also what Walt said.

15

j_h_r 04.23.12 at 2:30 pm

“Jonah Goldberg finds further confirmation of his views”

in other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and pugs tend to suffer from respiratory problems more often than other dogs

16

bianca steele 04.23.12 at 2:39 pm

FSC@7
But Goldberg knows the sooper-sekrit kode according to which “stressed” means “pointed out the Satanic nature of.”

17

Substance McGravitas 04.23.12 at 3:07 pm

There’s a difference between Jonah’s Atlantic URL and the one in the post above: Jonah’s has a Twitter hashtag stuck on the end. My theory: someone tweets a link to the Atlantic with OMG HITLER ‘TRUE SOCIALIST’ LOL and Jonah sees His concern for social betterment (‘true Socialism’) as a necessary prerequisite to the acceptance of his ideals by the masses. and doesn’t understand why the quotes are there.

18

MPAVictoria 04.23.12 at 3:21 pm

“pugs tend to suffer from respiratory problems more often than other dogs”
But damn are they wonderful dogs.
/Proud pug owner.
//What breeders have done to these dogs brings tears to my eyes. This is why I only adopt rescue animals.

19

phosphorious 04.23.12 at 3:32 pm

Hitler believed in the need for the government to subordinate all classes to the nation.

Plus, except for FDR, both Hitler and FDR had those little mustaches.

20

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 3:38 pm

They were both dog lovers.

21

Katherine 04.23.12 at 3:39 pm

Also, wasn’t Hitler vegetarian? All vegetarians are fascists therefore liberals!

22

Katherine 04.23.12 at 3:42 pm

Sorry, I mean socialists! Because liberal=socialist=national socialist=nazi-fascist! And anyone who says otherwise will be the first against the wall when the fascist/liberal/socialist revolution comes.

All meat eaters will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes! Yum.

23

Watson Ladd 04.23.12 at 3:49 pm

It’s not about equivalence, but about similarity: Mussolini wasn’t as interested in racial purification. FDR’s promotion of democracy separated him from the fascists politically, but he was equally a political dead end, and support for FDR was in many ways the end of the line for US socialism. As for the trajectory of the Nazi party and its policies, the German industrialists were quite suspicious of Hitler during his rise to power, often needing to be reassured by some of the Nazis that Hitler was only inveighing against them rhetorically. Honestly, I don’t see what the reluctance to call Hitler anti-capitalist about is: anti-capitalism isn’t necessarily progressive, as the Catholic church shows, so there really isn’t a point in defending it as inherently progressive.

24

Chris Bertram 04.23.12 at 3:50 pm

_Okay, do you guys hire Watson as the inept “other side” to all of your posts, so that you look better? I can’t think of any other plausible explanation._

Watson’s contract with us is currently under review. I understand he’s received lucrative offers to poach him to comment on other blogs. But money is tight.

25

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 3:51 pm

It’s not about equivalence, but about similarity…

OK, Watson, have it your way:

Hitler loved dogs. Similarly, so did FDR.

26

Timothy Burke 04.23.12 at 3:59 pm

What did Hayek think of dogs?

27

Watson Ladd 04.23.12 at 3:59 pm

Barry, there’s something substantial to the political similarity and the impact that FDR and Hitler both had on the Left in their respective countries. Hitler succeeded in getting the traditional bases of support for the SPD and KPD to vote for him: rural areas, workers, and small businessmen. FDR was supported by the CPUSA, which lead to its terminal decline. The possibility of such changes in support was due to an openness to anti-capitalism both by Hitler and FDR, and the Left in both cases failed to understand its impending self-annihilation.

28

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:02 pm

A cursory search on Google reveals that Salma Hayek’s dog once saved her life so I imagine she is rather well-disposed to them.

29

js. 04.23.12 at 4:10 pm

Oh man, I just lost the last twenty minutes of my life to the Corner. The One and Only! Really, that first link was a totally unnecessary temptation.

30

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:12 pm

Barry, there’s something substantial to the political similarity and the impact that FDR and Hitler both had on the Left in their respective countries.</i

I'm just boggling at this sentence and then rewrote my comment mid-boggle to make it more polite.

I'm also trying to remember the bit about the armed gangs of FDR supporters beating up leftists on the streets in the US their subsequent deportment to concentration camps but failing.

31

phosphorious 04.23.12 at 4:15 pm

It’s not about equivalence, but about similarity

Of course not. . . because equivalence is narrow and specific, while similarity is as elastic as you please. Godwin’s Law requires the wiggle room.

32

kharris 04.23.12 at 4:17 pm

Dogs are like schmoos – cute, lovable and very, very tasty. Everybody likes shmoos, so along the same lines, I’m sure Hitler and Roosevelt both liked dogs.

33

Aulus Gellius 04.23.12 at 4:20 pm

34

Doug 04.23.12 at 4:29 pm

Hitler succeeded in getting the traditional bases of support for the SPD and KPD to vote for him: rural areas, workers, and small businessmen.

There’s nearly as much wrong in this sentence as there was in the bit about Apple that gave Graeber so much grief. SPD and KPD were urban-based parties (SPD still is); workers did not leave their traditional allegiance for the NSDAP; and small businessmen were about as likely to support the SPD and KPD as the NRA is to propose James Brady for sainthood.

35

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:30 pm

Putting aside for a moment their many extraordinary accomplishments in the realms of domestic policy and statecraft, they were both well known for their love of their canine companions.

I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.

36

J. Otto Pohl 04.23.12 at 4:34 pm

32:

Shmoos look like they have the same texture as fufu. But, I have never eaten a shmoo. What do they taste like? If they taste like dog then I think I will stick to goat.

37

Emily 04.23.12 at 4:37 pm

Hitler didn’t restore the Kaiser to power, therefore Hitler was a Republican, rural areas vote Republican, ipso facto the Republican Party are Socialists.

38

Data Tutashkhia 04.23.12 at 4:39 pm

Damn, I have absolutely nothing to say in defense of Goldberg, to invigorate the discussion. And Watson: this is some lame trolling, man. Sometimes you just need to sit one out.

39

rf 04.23.12 at 4:39 pm

35 – “I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.”

Canadian PM Stephen Harper. More to be revealed in due course

40

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:39 pm

Shmoos taste like whatever it is you want to eat most right then. Or maybe like popplers.

41

Jamie 04.23.12 at 4:41 pm

I hear Barry Goldwater hated all animals equally, this proving that he was a true liberal.

Also, Reagan once ate dog meat. You know, that one time after he personally tore down the Great Wall of China before lowering taxes in Germany.

42

bob mcmanus 04.23.12 at 4:41 pm

Oh, let me see:

Brian Waddell, The War Against the New Deal
Alain Brinkley, The Rise and Fall of the New Deal
Charles Maier, In Search of Stability

Karl Polanyi, “Our Obsolete Market Mentality” 1947; and Hannes Lacher “The Slight Transformation” in Reading Polanyi for the 21st Century

Watson may be an idiot, but I think his heart is in the right place. The rest of you in this thread, and especially Holbo, are totally useless to me, even as inspiration. I have never felt for a second that Holbo has any interest in resisting neoliberalism.

Hell, Goldberg is more useful. Couldn’t find it, but just read somewhere that fascism was something like “The last Utopian resistance to the commodification of land and labour.”

Total waste here.

43

rf 04.23.12 at 4:45 pm

Data, Watson and Bob Mc in the one place? Its like the Yalta conference of trolls. Pass the popcorn

44

Katherine 04.23.12 at 4:49 pm

But what about Socks the White House cat? Socks was in the White House when Clinton was President, when the US invaded the Balkan states, which sound a bit like the Baltic states, which the USSR invaded (or annexed, or occupied, or colonised) in 1940, therefore Clinton-the-Cat-Lover was a Soviet, so liberals are communists? But Hitler hated communists and liked dogs. I’m not sure whether this terribly meaningful chain of associations and sound-a-likes helps or hinders Goldberg.

Does anyone know how Stalin felt about household pets?

45

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:52 pm

Jesus Bob, I love you man, but things were really rolling here and you had to come in and piss on our parade. I mean even Data fucking Tutashkhia called out Watson on his trolling. Can’t we have a bit of fun?

46

ajay 04.23.12 at 4:52 pm

Churchill, of course was a pig lover. “A cat looks down upon a man, and a dog looks up to a man, but a pig will look a man in the eye and see his equal.” When things were getting a bit much for him in 1941 or so he would go and lean over a fence at Chartwell and grunt at the pigs.

47

ajay 04.23.12 at 4:54 pm

It’s interesting to me not only that the Georgian word for “data” is “Data”, but also that Georgian also has a single word that means “that-I-have-pulled-out-of-my-arse”.

48

Barry Freed 04.23.12 at 4:54 pm

That’s probably all you have to know about Churchill to know the man right there.

49

Uncle Kvetch 04.23.12 at 4:57 pm

I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.

Pat Buchanan, for one…to my eternal sorrow.

50

ajay 04.23.12 at 5:03 pm

I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.

Death. Or, rather, DEATH (from the Discworld books). Which is excellent company to be in.

51

William Timberman 04.23.12 at 5:06 pm

Nothing to contribute but my rapt attention. If nothing else, threads like this make the cod liver oil of modern politics go down a little easier — for which I thank you all.

52

JanieM 04.23.12 at 5:08 pm

The rest of you in this thread, and especially Holbo, are totally useless to me, even as inspiration.

We’re here to be useful to Bob?

News to me.

53

Data Tutashkhia 04.23.12 at 5:14 pm

Bob rules (although no need to get personal). Not sure about “the last Utopian resistance”; there is a lot of it going on now here in Europe: France, Greece, Hungary, you name it.

54

Hogan 04.23.12 at 5:20 pm

49: this guy, also too. Which just goes to prove . . . hell, I don’t know.

55

Norwegian Guy 04.23.12 at 5:44 pm

Looks like Comrade Ladd has joined the third period Comintern: FDR was a social fascist, just like the SPD!

56

Nine 04.23.12 at 6:31 pm

“Damn, I have absolutely nothing to say in defense of Goldberg, to invigorate the discussion.”

Now if “invigorate the discussion” isn’t a superb euphemism for trolling ?!! I’m going to borrow it.

57

The Tragically Flip 04.23.12 at 6:33 pm

Sooo basically what I’m reading is that Goldberg’s point that Hitler was a vegetarian and many liberals are vegetarians remains his strongest argument for liberals being the inheritors of the Nazi political tradition?

Also, I understand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be understood to be a vibrant democracy. IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE NAME!

58

Watson Ladd 04.23.12 at 6:36 pm

Doug is correct, and I was wrong about the shifts in voting during the Weimar period: (KDP+SDP) is a near constant, with the NSDAP mostly pulling seats from the right wing parties and eventually the center. I apologize for misleading everyone here about the elections. but I still think that after August 4th, 1914, the SDP was a nationalist party. The Freikorps were after all, endorsed by the SDP lead government to crush the Bavarian Republic. German nationalism also viewed capitalism with suspicion: the DAP, a predecessor to the NSDAP called for profit sharing to ease the division into classes that divided the German nation. Why posters are ignoring the reality that authors like Reich (before he went crazy) actually saw around them is beyond me.

59

The Tragically Flip 04.23.12 at 6:47 pm

Can’t resist nutpicking from the Corner Comments:


Take a look at OWS, at the rent-a-mob that occupied the Wisconsin Capitol building, at Al Sharpton’s army of the worthless, and at American labor unions. That’s them. Those are the folks who want a nice-looking uniform with some shiny boots and a nifty salute.

It hurts trying to process the cognitive dissonance here. I guess there must be a muscle for this, and if you work it out enough on smaller lifts like climate change and trickle down economics, you can eventually do the heavy lifting that tells you OWS is full of dirty, disorganized hippies covered in body art with slovenly attire and a hatred of authority who are also secretly fascists pining to be marching in identically sharply dressed ordered ranks accepting orders without question.

60

kent 04.23.12 at 6:50 pm

Mr. T. Flip: thanks for brightening my day with that nutpick. Good stuff!

61

Data Tutashkhia 04.23.12 at 6:54 pm

Watson, if you define everything that is not classical liberalism as ‘socialism’, then yes, it all makes perfect sense. But few people do.

62

The Tragically Flip 04.23.12 at 6:58 pm

Watson, whatever the SDP was in 1914, I think the ultimate trump card will be that they were the only party* to actually vote against the Enabling Act, and many of their elected members paid for opposing Hitler with their lives. When it was required to pick sides in a battle for all the marbles, the right (and centre) sided with the Nazis, and the left opposed them, even knowing the high price they would pay. All the rest is hand waving after the fact.

* – One expects the KDP would have voted against it too, had they not all been in jail or in hiding by that point

(There’s a memorial to members of the Reichstag who died for opposing Hitler:
http://meiadeleite.com/2012/02/13/walking-on-history-iii-the-reichstag-memorial/)

63

alec 04.23.12 at 7:08 pm

Flip: It’s a difficult question all around, and one does occasionally encounter the question of what would have happened if not for the KPD/SPD rivalry – unfortunately, it’s like positing that the space Hitler occupied had been occupied by candy and kittens. The KPD was lead by the woefully inadequate Thaelmann, simultaneously a personality-cult figure and a craven Stalin-puppet; under him, they continued with the policy of ‘social fascism’ long past the point where it was obvious to anyone in Germany that the Left was being divided and ruled.

Yet on the other hand, the SPD was hardly the innocent it is painted as by history. The whole reason for the ‘social fascism’ thing was Ebert making it official SPD policy to collaborate – even using the whole resources of the German state – with right-wing militias to murder left militants and agitators outside of the SPD aegis. In this manner, they effectively created the moral universe of modern Europe in which agitation to the left of the center-left party is not only ridiculed and dismissed but met with sincere and extreme armed resistance.

Truth seldom falls cleanly from the bone we call the Weimar Republic.

64

bexley 04.23.12 at 7:15 pm

What I think is missing in this thread is an analysis of the similarity between Watson and Hitler.

His handle is obviously a reference to Sherlock’s sidekick Dr Watson, currently being played by Martin Freeman in the BBC series. Who was Hitler’s sidekick? Martin Bormann. Therefore it’s obvious Watson’s name and his boring posts are a hidden reference to Martin Bormann.

65

Patrick 04.23.12 at 7:36 pm

I wonder what these guys make of Germany’s Republican Party. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-10804409438,00.html

66

Chris Bertram 04.23.12 at 7:42 pm

This reminds me of a conversation I overheard on the tube in 2003 between an elderly Jamaican guy and his friend: “What I can’t understand is why the Republicans want to fight with the Republican Guard.”

67

Uncle Kvetch 04.23.12 at 7:47 pm

Also, I understand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be understood to be a vibrant democracy. IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE NAME!

You’ve got it backwards. It proves that Barack Obama is a communist.

68

herr doktor bimler 04.23.12 at 8:13 pm

I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.

Ernst Blofeld.

69

bexley 04.23.12 at 8:17 pm

You’ve got it backwards. It proves that Barack Obama is a communist.

You know who else eats dogs?

70

Hogan 04.23.12 at 8:30 pm

@66: See also Robert Jordan talking to the Spanish Republicans in For Whom the Bell Tolls:

“Are you a Communist?”

“No, I am an anti-fascist.”

“For a long time?”

“Since I have understood fascism.”

“How long is that?”

“For nearly ten years.”

“That is not much time,” the woman said. “I have been a Republican for twenty years.”

“My father was a Republican all his life,” Maria said. “It was for that they shot him.”

“My father was also a Republican all his life. Also my grandfather,” Robert Jordan said.

“In what country?”

“The United States.”

“Did they shoot them?” the woman asked.

“Qué va,” Maria said. “The United States is a country of Republicans. They don’t shoot you for being a Republican there.”

“All the same it is a good thing to have a grandfather who was a Republican,” the woman said. “It shows a good blood.”

“My grandfather was on the Republican national committee,” Robert Jordan said. That impressed even Maria.

71

Watson Ladd 04.23.12 at 9:16 pm

alec, the KPD could survive cooperation with the SPD, but not capitulation to it, which is what the eventual Popular Front against fascism meant. The SPD was the staunchest defender of a thoroughly capitalist and rotten Weimar Republic. Trotsky was right: the KPD would need to ally itself with the SPD as simple matter of tactics against a fascist threat, then defeat the SPD, while not forgetting how rotten the SPD had become.

72

Anderson 04.23.12 at 9:36 pm

O/T but since Hogan brought it up, has anyone ever wanted to beat Hemingway over the head with a hardback copy of For Whom the Bell Tolls for calling Robert Jordan “Robert Jordan” for TWO-THIRDS OF THE FUCKING BOOK?

Or is that just me?

(Funny quote tho, Hogan.)

73

Jonathan Mayhew 04.23.12 at 10:01 pm

Hemingway’s joke here is that “Republican” means (almost) the opposite in Spain and the United States.

74

Nemo 04.23.12 at 11:40 pm

Hitler’s definition of what makes a socialist:

“Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal that the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, ‘Deutschland, Deutschland uber Alles’ to meant that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people-that man is a Socialist.” (Speech July 28, 1922)

Gee, and I always thought socialism had something to do with public ownership of the means of production in whole or in part. I guess by his own defintion Hitler was a socialist, but I don’t think many people use his definition of socialism today.

75

thompsaj 04.24.12 at 1:40 am

I always just wonder what is was that these people think happened in 2008 that led to Obama being the president. Like how did we let the country be taken over by fascists and why didn’t anyone ask me about it?

76

John Quiggin 04.24.12 at 2:03 am

@28 Can we call in D Drezner for some Salma Hayek/Freddie Hayek comparisons

77

Natilo Paennim 04.24.12 at 2:15 am

70: This is, I believe, the exact point at which I stopped reading FWTBT, because, even then, at the age of 15, I knew that Spanish partisans had a much more nuanced understanding of comparative politics and various country-specific political formations than Hemingway was giving them credit for. Also, not enough shoving crucifixes down the throats of Falangists before executing them.

Similarly to the way that it should be obvious to everyone by now that PETA is a Republican front group, I have to believe that Goldberg is a Democratic mole. He’s not trying to damage the system as a whole enough to be a secret radical, but he does undermine the legitimacy of Republican thought (and I use the word advisedly), better than almost anyone except Ann Coulter (who is, in her own person, obviously a Serpentor-like amalgam of the genetic material of Ayn Rand, Phyllis Schlafly and Nancy Reagan.)

78

Barry Freed 04.24.12 at 3:26 am

JQ – Drezner would appear to be the go-to guy for such a thing. I’m not sure he’d agree with this though: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwhayek.html

79

Britta 04.24.12 at 3:37 am

Katherine @21:

Also, wasn’t Hitler vegetarian? All vegetarians are fascists therefore liberals!

This point was already covered in his book.

80

chris m 04.24.12 at 3:45 am

reply to Watson ladd #27

In their best electoral performance, july 1932, the Nazis only received 1 out of every 4 working class votes.

81

Barry Freed 04.24.12 at 3:57 am

This point was already covered in his book.

True that, and it is a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

82

Jamie 04.24.12 at 4:08 am

Hayek was really a liberal. You can see it in the rap video he did – he wanted less empire, and money to balance output, if only on slightly quaint terms.

Look it up.

83

Happy Heyoka 04.24.12 at 4:36 am

The trouble that some of us have here in the peanut gallery is the continual redefinition of all the good epithets like ‘socialist’, ‘liberal’ and ‘libertarian’ – by the time I get around to labelling everyone the damn thing shifts again. Next time, I swear, you’ll all get a tattoo and I’m not changing it.

I am, myself, a cat lover, and uncertain in whose political company this places me.
me, Pol Pot and Torquemada

84

Seth 04.24.12 at 5:56 am

@Flip:

“liberals being the inheritors of the Nazi political tradition”

I think Goldberg’s deep idea is that liberalism (of a Wilsonian vintage) *led* to Fascism. Sort of like saying Obama is a monkey’s *cousin* rather than a direct descendent. See? Totally different thing.

Of course the whole idea of the shell game is to help you lose your place in the argument, leaving only the vague association of nasty brutish Nazis with the L word.

85

Katherine 04.24.12 at 8:14 am

This point was already covered in his book.

Damn, Poe’s Law strikes again.

86

Niall McAuley 04.24.12 at 8:35 am

‘Deutschland, Deutschland uber Alles’

For NichtDeutschenLangenSprechers, that means “German, German Overalls”, which explains a lot.

87

Vanya 04.24.12 at 11:36 am

Let’s see, hated banks, believed that small farmers were the backbone of the nation, acquisition of more land critical to the national spirit even if the people already there have to be moved by violence – sounds like Andrew Jackson is the US President most like Hitler.

88

chris 04.24.12 at 11:56 am

@87: And Jackson was a Democrat!!!! (Yes, right wingers actually do argue that belonging to a party with the same name as the modern DP makes you the same. Hey, it’s the only way they can connect themselves to Lincoln without everyone falling down laughing…)

89

JP Stormcrow 04.24.12 at 12:20 pm

90

JP Stormcrow 04.24.12 at 2:11 pm

Should have been, “three people who have never been in Jonah Goldberg’s kitchen”.

91

Malaclypse 04.24.12 at 2:59 pm

but he does undermine the legitimacy of Republican thought (and I use the word advisedly), better than almost anyone except Ann Coulter

Pam Gellar. Michelle Malkin. John Derbyshire.

92

P O'Neill 04.24.12 at 3:09 pm

We’re about a week away from strange new respect for Liberal Fascism when we realize that it was merely the pop book that would free Jonah to write the book he really wanted to write: The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Sample teaser observation –

Diversity is strength: Cool.The NBA should have a quota for midgets and one-legged point guards!

93

Barry 04.24.12 at 3:14 pm

Seth: “I think Goldberg’s deep idea is that liberalism (of a Wilsonian vintage) led to Fascism. Sort of like saying Obama is a monkey’s cousin rather than a direct descendent. See? Totally different thing.”

That’s a ‘deep idea’ only in the fact that Goldberg must have been deep into fourth or fifth bowl when when he coughed that out.

94

js. 04.24.12 at 3:50 pm

‘Deutschland, Deutschland uber Alles’

For NichtDeutschenLangenSprechers, that means “German, German Overalls”, which explains a lot.

Lots of good stuff on this thread, but this wins it. Made me laugh out loud. Cheers.

95

ragweed 04.24.12 at 4:18 pm

Let’s not forget the Hitler-Eisenhower connection – they both built big highways.

96

ragweed 04.24.12 at 4:23 pm

Pam Gellar. Michelle Malkin. John Derbyshire.

I was in the same graduating class with Malkin, when she was a Heritage Foundation point-person for the anti-PC war. . . Except for once championing an African-American bar in Seattle (unfairly shut down by the police – she supported it on anti-government intrusion grounds, but at least acknowledged the possibility that black people could be victims of racism) she hasn’t changed a bit.

97

GiT 04.24.12 at 10:35 pm

@92

The synopsis:

“[Goldberg] shows that the grand Progressive tradition of denying an ideological agenda while pursuing it vigorously under the false-flag of reasonableness is alive and well. And he reveals how this dangerous game may lead us further down the path of self-destruction.”

An idiot does Schmitt? Which makes Jonah into neo-Carl. So there you go, Jonah Goldberg is a neo-Nazi.

98

Frank in midtown 04.25.12 at 12:30 am

I’m with Seth @84 Commie, Pinko, and faggot have all lost their sting as adjectives used with liberal. Onward to Fascist Liberals!!
Too bad Rush looks so much like Jaba or we could be Hutt Liberals.

99

mijnheer 04.25.12 at 3:14 pm

“The Socialism that we want has nothing at all to do with the international-Marxist-Jewish levelling out process. We want Socialism as the doctrine of the community. We want Socialism as the ancient German idea of destiny.”
— Joseph Goebbels, 1926 speech “Lenin or Hitler?”, quoted in Z. A. B. Zeman, Nazi Propaganda

100

Salient 04.25.12 at 3:56 pm

The Socialism that we want has nothing at all to do with the international-Marxist-Jewish leveling out process.

The level of cognitive dissonance necessary to support a concept of a population of dastardly socialist usurers would be astonishing to anyone nowadays who hasn’t had long-term exposure to the use of the word Islamofascist.

101

veblen's dog 04.25.12 at 5:12 pm

I like Goldberg because he’s a constant reminder of why nepotism is a bad idea. Of course, he’s no Dubya.

102

Emily 04.25.12 at 5:12 pm

@99
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. [The King] has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms…”
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, In Congress, July 4, 1776

103

na 04.25.12 at 8:06 pm

With great detail and abundant care, Erick son of Erick has proven yet again that you are all a bunch of fascists:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/04/25/the-second-coming-of-american-fascism/

104

David in NY 04.25.12 at 8:08 pm

@Barry Fried

True that, and it is a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

We have a winner.

105

David in NY 04.25.12 at 8:08 pm

Sorry Barry, I’d swear I typed Freed.

106

David in NY 04.25.12 at 8:22 pm

Turns out that Adam Bellow (amazingly, Bellow fils), edits Jonah’s crap. although without much real success. Takes a nepotist to know a …
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2007/03/jonah_where_art_thou.html

All right, they’re not technically nepotists. Just two guys born with right-for-mediocrities-to-work-in-conservative-publishing-based-on-their-parents’-success credentials in their mouths. But, oh Christ-on-a-cracker, I see that Bellow’s book is In Praise of Nepotism.

107

MarkUp 04.26.12 at 1:34 pm

Maybe an un-resigned Elmer Rice could revamp Ethi-Goldberg.

108

Tim Wilkinson 04.27.12 at 12:41 am

FWIW, Watson Ladd @27 says: Hitler succeeded in getting the traditional bases of support for the SPD and KPD to vote for him: rural areas, workers, and small businessmen. FDR was supported by the CPUSA, which lead to its terminal decline. The possibility of such changes in support was due to an openness to anti-capitalism both by Hitler and FDR, and the Left in both cases failed to understand its impending self-annihilation.

Richard Geary @ Nottingham University says:

although there was some defection of former SPD voters to the Nazis, there was little desertion from the KPD. Most local studies of the labour vote further suggest that most defections from the SPD benefited the Communists rather than the Nazis.

Rather than defeating the Left by ideological-electoral means, Hitler applied other resources such as the first German concentration camp and a fair quantity of lead to its terminal decline. If this is to be regarded as ‘self-annihilation’, then maybe WL has an answer to bexley:

Watson Ladd @10: The major difference was that FDR did not have a campaign of nationalism and irredentism

bexley @14: or exterminating the Jews. I’d say thats a pretty major difference.

However (this relevant to the ‘Skeletons in the Imperialist Attic’ thread) besides Nazi ‘irredentism’, there’s the ‘naked military expansionism aimed at colonising Russia’ side of things, noted in point 10 in the (1932) Atlantic article’s list: France, he urges, must be broken before Germany can undertake to conquer land from Russia (the only possible source).

I reckon someone would have mentioned this to Stalin by 1939.

109

Anand Manikutty 04.27.12 at 10:25 am

I hadn’t imagined that in 2012, we would be arguing about whether Hitler was a socialist or not although there is some subtlety in the way Nazis thought of socialism as being part of their party platform. Oddly enough, there are some Indian politicians that identify both with socialism and with Hitler. The man, we are told by one worthy, was “an artist”, and said worthy “loved him for that”.

Political commentary has become just so very bizarre.

110

ajay 04.27.12 at 1:13 pm

The man, we are told by one worthy, was “an artist”, and said worthy “loved him for that”.

Hitler! Now zere was a painter!

111

Watson Ladd 04.27.12 at 9:35 pm

Tim, many leaders of the KPD analyzed fascism in terms of a self-liquidation of the Left. Both Willem Reich and Krakauer argued that ultimate responsibility for fascism lay on the Left: here is Reich, and in particular it’s understanding of revolution as inevitable, a failure to appreciate the connection of the majority to fascism as more then false consciousness. This connection was only possible because fascism claimed to stand against capitalism.

112

JJ 04.28.12 at 4:08 pm

If liberal fascism can be defined as the ideology of an industrialized state which exports its surplus population to its colonies, thereby avoiding the more extreme social dislocations which an industrial revolution provokes, then those industrial states which lost their colonies or never developed a colonial system to begin with were forced to face the social consequences of a revolution from above (fascism) or a revolution from below (communism). Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain at one extreme, and Russia and China at the other.

113

J. Otto Pohl 04.28.12 at 5:12 pm

JJ

Russia did export its surplus population to its colonies. Siberia, Kazakhstan, and even parts of Central Asia proper received a large number of settlers starting in the 1880s. Siberia and what is now Kazakhstan received millions of such settlers during the last four decades of Tsarist rule. At the same time a significant number of Jews, ethnic Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, and Finns left the Russian Empire for the Americas. I suppose the argument is that Russia was not industrialized. But, the same argument could be made for Spain and Italy.

Germany lost its overseas colonies in 1914 after 30 years. But, it did export a significant number of people to Namibia and a much smaller number to what is now Tanzania. Not to mention the fact that Germany and earlier the states that became Germany exported a large number of emigrants to North America, South America, and the Russian Empire starting in the late 18th Century. So it appears here there is both industrialization and significant emigration, some of it to colonies.

Japan did not lose its colonies until after WWII. It acquired Taiwan in 1895, southern Sakhalin from 1855-1875 and then again after 1905, Korea as a protectorate in 1905, etc. So here you have industrialization, colonies, and of course colonial settlement. But, I don’t think there was anything liberal about Japan’s version of “fascism.”

Other than pointing out that the British industrialized, had a number of settler colonies, and avoided both fascism and communism I am not sure this theory proves anything. I think Barrington Moore’s _Lord and Peasant_ does a lot better job of explaining why there was a revolution from above in Japan and one from below in China. The export of surplus population to colonies does not play any significant role in his analysis.

114

Substance McGravitas 04.28.12 at 5:16 pm

Via Atrios we note that Goldberg is hawking his book about the tyranny of clichés with a top five list of clichés those dumb liberals lean on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/top-five-cliches-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/2012/04/27/gIQAFR1zlT_story.html

115

rf 04.28.12 at 5:25 pm

I think it was Geo that recommended Alex Pareen’s annual hack list a couple of weeks back. Heres his (short) 2010 take on Goldberg. (The list in its entirety is hilarious, fwiw)

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/24/hack_list_7/

116

rf 04.28.12 at 5:45 pm

“Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the “reality-based community”

Why in the name of God would he use a Karl Rove quote to attack liberals. (And conservatives own up to their ideology? Adam Smith and Edmund Burke ties? I’m only two paragraphs in and this is already painful)

117

Emily 04.28.12 at 5:46 pm

“But, I don’t think there was anything liberal about Japan’s version of “fascism.”

Otto, Wouldn’t that be because Japan might be said to have been compelled into fast industrialisation by the expansionist European powers, who, I think, took to nominal liberalism (in the UK sense) and utilitarianism well after forced enclosure and colonisation and industrialisation?

My understanding is in Britain, as per your example, Henry VII actively made good laws against enclosure and against the use of tillage land for pasture (there was demand from the continent for mutton and wool); whereas Henry VIII, the last of the Tudor Kings and more decadent, allowed enclosure and pasturing to support his lavish lifestyle through taxation. His daughter, Elizabeth I, struggling to control the emboldened nobility &c., permitted the first British colony to be established. No idea who the first industrialist there was though…

Comments on this entry are closed.