Definitions versus Namecalling

Jonah Goldberg has a book called Liberal Fascism which is clearly designed to elicit a response from the left. Goldberg is an editor for the National Review.

I am particularly sensitive to the appropriate definition of fascism because of an experience while an undergraduate when a liberal professor attempted to describe Goldwater's 1964 campaign as "fascism." It was nonsense and I debated him for two weeks about his sloppy use of definitions. Afterall, wasn't fascism an outgrowth of the left? Wasn't it called "National Socialism" for a reason? I learned from that class that the left is often prone to define terms in ways that they think will advance their position. They tend to label anything they don't like in pejorative terms. I wanted to read the book to see if Goldberg is guilty of the same sin.

Goldberg is a great researcher. While I have some disagreement with some of his history, including the tendency to place figures out of their context, I think he proves his case. At times he is overly fair to the other side in a way that they have not been. He argues that fascism is defined by four characteristics - 1) the community is valued over the individual, 2) mobilization is an organizing principle (we are getting together to join a crusade), 3) expert knowledge is highly valued and 4) there is an obsession with aesthetics - especially the draw of youth. In a series of chapters he then offers history of Mussolini, Hitler, Wilson, FDR and others and argues that each of the American figures have at least a credible claim for being a fascist. He goes on to argue that the politics of meaning in our time fall into the same definitional scope.

Where I differ with Goldberg is not in his history but in his failure to apply current conditions of the figures he writes about. There is a missing historical context - that could strengthen his argument were it better applied. A credible case can be made that there are disturbing similarities between the European and American figures he covers. One of Goldberg's forebearers is Vincent Ostrom who thirty years ago wrote in The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration that many writers in public administration start from the wrong base of theory. He argued that the field of public administration saw as its founding father Woodrow Wilson for his writings including Congressional Government and his book on the state- which rely heavily on theory built by Max Weber and Bismarck rather than on founding fathers like Madison. That discussion and debate continues today and it is no less vibrant. Goldberg's book adds a lot of fuel to the fire, regardless of whether you agree with his use of terminology.

One of the fun parts of Goldberg's book is his scholarship. The quote presented yesterday - which most people would call at least somewhat fitting in the broad scope of fascism was made by Woodrow Wilson in 1915. (I got a winner almost immediately!) His quotes about the appropriate use of state power are equally troubling. But putting the notions in Goldberg's book to practice, several figures in today's environment could be painted into his canvas. Is No Child Left Behind a fascistic law? It is lousy law but I am not sure how much the classification helps in thinking about better political systems.