On CNN Headline News, Goldberg compared Obama, FDR to Hitler
On Glenn Beck, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said: "I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when [Sen.] Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, 'I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me.' FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' "
On the February 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said: "I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when [Sen.] Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, 'I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me.' FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' " Moments later, Goldberg added: "The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- you know, there are no perfect solutions to anything." Goldberg is the author of the recently published book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday, January 2008). During his interview with Goldberg, host Glenn Beck said, "I've been saying -- I mean, a couple of weeks ago, Jonah, I said, 'Please, stop buying my book. Buy this book and give it to your liberal friend.' "
As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 10 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Goldberg claimed "you can draw a line" from Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini to Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, "but it's not a straight one. ... I'm not saying that today's liberalism is the son of Nazism or the son of Italian fascism. I'm saying it's sort of like the great-grandniece once removed." Goldberg also declared on the January 17 edition of Morning Joe that "Hillary Clinton is essentially like the agricultural minister from the Soviet Politburo in 1976." Beck called Clinton a "liberal fascist" on the January 24 edition of his CNN Headline News program.
The whole February 22 edition of Glenn Beck was an interview with Goldberg. Part of the interview also aired on the February 18 edition of the program.
From the February 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: So how do you -- how do you stop it? How do you wake people up?
I've been saying -- I mean, a couple of weeks ago, Jonah, I said, "Please, stop buying my book. Buy this book and give it to your liberal friend. One that is open-minded enough that says, 'OK, I may agree on these policies, yadda, yadda, yadda, but it's important that I learn the history --
GOLDBERG: Right.
BECK: -- of liberal fascism so I can then judge for myself. I know, "Oh, this is what I'm doing." ' "
GOLDBERG: Right.
BECK: If you know what you're doing, well, then you're making an intelligent choice. How do you stop this?
GOLDBERG: Well, I'm -- I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, "I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me."
FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, "All your problems can be solved." And all that kind of thing. I don't think conservatives should buy into that logic.
The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- you know, there are no perfect solutions to anything. It's just going to take a long argument.
I mean, this argument has been going on in America for a century now. You know, during the Cold War, this was an intense argument.
You had liberals constantly looking to places like the Soviet Union as a model, you know, saying that it was a better place. You have still have these incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people talking about how Castro has a better model. You know? And --
BECK: I wonder who that is.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
in the "doctrine of facism", see link, mussolini condemned "liberalism", and called for "a century tending to the 'right'." not to mention the fact that fdr was only able to pass the "lend lease" program to assist european democracies already in the fight against hitler because of large democratic majorities in congress. the republicans voted against it in both houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism
THANKS AGAIN, "LIBERAL" MEDIA...
For giving airtime to people like Goldberg whose only talents are concocting similarities where absolutely none exist and quoting things that people haven't said.
You mean the right wing corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media, Pete. We know that CNN head Johnathan Klein is a right wing conservative corporatist Republican turning CNN to the right.
Klein sustains Liar Beck and those like him to further the GOP and/or maintain their hold on power.
The dis-likes of right wing fascist racist demagougic chickenhawk sociopaths like Liar Jonah Goldberg know that GOP-CNN is a pro-Republican network that's friendly to conservatives.
Obama and Hitler, I'm so stupid, how could I miss the connection. I mean Obama is so clearly the supreme Arian ruler.
"you can draw a line" from Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini to Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, "but it's not a straight one"
Ok so you start the line at Mussolini, head south to sicily and make a left.... what the hell is this guy talking about.
lol, 'make a left....'
Let's fix this:
"The logic of conservatism says that there are no ... ...solutions to anything. "
All better now.
It's all so clear now! FDR, the president who led the country through WWII and defeated Hitler, _was_ Hitler!
I'm sure that if only the country had reelected Hoover in 1932, the Great Depression would have solved itself and Hitler would have fizzled out on his own--after about another hundred years.
The logic of conservatism is that problems can't be solved, so why try? Just let the rich get richer and drive us merrily along into global catastrophe.
If you combined the IQ scores of Beck and Goldberg, they'd still be mired in double digits.
They'd be lucky to reach double digits. I was thinking of a number around 6 or 7.... :-)
BONUS:
Q: What did George W. Bush get on his IQ test?
A: Drool. :-)
John Gardner wrote a book about Sherlock Holmes being Prof. Moriarty -- was FDR that clever to pull the wool over the eyes of the nation. Or, as is more likely the case, are Beck and Goldberg "incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people" -- to lift Goldberg phrase.
BECK: "I wonder who that is?"
UFLEIRX: "You, you moron."
I suppose anyone can “basically” say anything they want – Goldberg proves that. The question is does any of it make any logical sense? If his book is anything like the drivel in this interview, he’s grasping at straws – much like conservatives grab at anything that comes along that will fill their ears with what they want to hear. Beck writes a book “debunking” global warming “myths” – Goldberg says liberals are the real fascists. Gee, I wonder who’s buying their books?
If anyone is purporting a “silver bullet” theory it is conservatives. They are the party with all the answers. Listen to them - they’ll tell you how the earth was formed, how man was “created”, how to spread democracy by invading sovereign nations and instilling your will on the people, how to cure a weak economy my giving tax break to the rich, how to “save” Social Security by privatizing it, how the world will end – you get the idea.
Yeah right, it’s Obama who is claiming to have the “magic bullet”. GW Bush hasn’t asked the citizens of this nation for one ounce of sacrifice – his “magic bullet” presidency was going to cure all the nation’s ills. On the other hand, I don’t recall Obama making any false promises or predictions like Bush did when he led us into war or when he promised different results than what actually occurred from any of his other “plans” mentioned above. The only thing I remember hearing Obama say is that we will have to work harder together as a nation and give back to our country in service – all while he is providing us with inspiration and hope to get the work accomplished.
Nice try, Goldberg, but the only ones you can preach your theories to who might be listening is the choir. I wouldn’t buy a word of it even if you paid me to take it.
CLEVE:
Understand Goldberg's motivation: He's TIRED of hearing that the political history of the world links fascism and the rightwing. He DOESN'T LIKE that the most brutal despots and dictators in history were Rightwingers, who followed rightwing principles and had a world view that is rightwing.
It hurts Goldberg's feelings. It makes him mad. And so he decided to strike back by simply asserting, "Oh YEAH? Well it's the LEFTISTS who are fascists!"
After deciding to make this point -- this "projection" -- he was faced with backing up his claim. This he could not do, without completely redefining all commonly known and used terms which describe global historic politics.
He spent an entire book doing this redefining, and it was guided by his simple logical formulation: Fascists are considered BAD. Goldberg himself considers LIBERALS to be BAD. Therefore, Liberals must be Fascists.
The corollary, of course, is that Rightwingers are eternally GOOD.
It makes for a book full of fancy, but, hey, it makes Goldberg feel BETTER about himself, so the goal was achieved.
It makes for a book full of fancy, but, hey, it makes Goldberg feel BETTER about himself, so the goal was achieved.
And, like I was trying to say, it does the same for Beck - hence his glowing praise of the book and repeated invites of Goldberg on his show to tell the rest of the world of his new-found history book. I'm surprised the photo here doesn't show Beck under the desk on his knees.
I'm a liberal and I'm okay
on Kristallnacht you will do as I say!
He's a liberal and he's okay
on Kristallnacht you will do as he say!
I save the trees, I rob the rich
I go to the lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I kill babies
in the fascist oven'ry!
He saves the trees...
He's a liberal...
I save the trees, I burn the jews,
I love to stifle free speech!
I implore all the sponsors,
to not support conservative screech!
He saves the trees...
He's a liberal...
I save the trees, I love the oppressed,
I suspend the right to bear arms,
I wish those stupid hunters,
Would learn to love the farms!
He saves the trees...
He's a liberal...
WAHH! And I thought you were so RUGGED!
Has anybody here read the book?
did you read the link i provided above, where mussolini condemned liberalism and called for a century of the right?
I make it a policy not to ever condemn a book that I have not personally read. A link to some web site does not make a difference.
More importantly, it's important not to prejudge issues and not engage in the kind of anti-intellectual "facism" that leads to banning and burning books.
it's not a "link to some web site". it's a link to what mussolini believed, possibly ghost written, but his name is signed to it. but you dismiss that and insist some book is more important.
No one here is stopping the presses or building bonfires with this book. I see you are trying one of those "gotcha" tools to catch liberals being hypocritical.
But that is not the case. When someone makes a claim that is so obviously false that it is laughable, I'm not going to waste my time reading it. His premise is utterly false that to point of being self-evident. In fact, if he was proven right, it would leave our prior knowledge useless.
In other words: I think Jonah Goldberg is a stupid-head.
You might be interested in this review by Michael Leeden, a neo conservative. He thinks the book is a big joke, which it is, for exactly the reason I quote him below. If you want a polemic, then you might like the book. If you want real history, don't bother.
link
The best that can be said about this is that it’s imaginative. But it’s what happens when you are bound and determined to put liberals, Socialists, Communists, fascists and Nazis into a common political home. I don’t have a final answer to this question, but it is likely that the differences between Italian fascism and German Nazism are greater than their similarities.
I wouldn't condemn "The Writings of Mao Zedong", "Mein Kemp", "The Communist Manifesto" or "If I Did IT' until after I read them either.
I mean Mao's book might be pretty insightful. And I know that after reading the book by that Hitler dude, my inferiority complex just might disappear.
"More importantly, it's important not to prejudge issues and not engage in the kind of anti-intellectual "facism" that leads to banning and burning books."
Facism sounds like something related to the face. FASCISM relates to book burning, but having Liar Jonah Goldberg's past lies, both in his book and before, being debunked, is not fascism.
The dis-likes of Goldberg believe that we should have right wing oligarchic fascism, where only extreme right wing conservatives and the corporations have rights.
Has anybody here read the book?(anothercon)
Nope, can't say that I have. I have seen the author on more than one tv interview, and heard him on the radio, and he seems incapable of even staying consistent with his own propaganda for more than a sentence or two.
Sorry, a guy who can't get through a five minute interview without spouting several logical errors that I could shoot down while doing a couple of other things at the same time doesn't really hit the "book sale" button with me.
But since we're asking, Notanother, have you read the book?
Until I have read the book, I'm not going to engage in "virtual burning" or "virtual banning"... Honestly, since when is it even controversial to argue that you should read a book before criticising it?
Let me just say on the record that the word "facist" is a hot button term that is probably meant to inflame - however, there is a certain "whiff of facism" at MMFA in the efforts to silence the voices of dissent iwhenever a person is critical of Hillary or Bill.
Finally, here is another "I told you so" - I argued a while back that recent books by Naomi Wolf and Joe Conason would start this whole name-calling epidemic. We on the left must take some of the blame for this kind of rhetoric.
Now, once again, like I did with Naomi Wolf and Joe Conason, I'm not going to criticise Goldberg until after I have read the book.
Let's say an author writes a book with an absolutely ludicrous and indefensible central premise/thesis, say something like "FDR was an agent of Stalin determined to undermine American capitalism and join America and the Soviet Union together in a permanent alliance."
Now the author makes many appearances trying to expose his book to the public, but everytime he has to face honest questions about his premise he completely fails and ends up looking the fool. In desperate frustration he begins only appearing on shows that will only pretend to discuss the book but really just spend a lot of time calling FDR a commie without backing it up at all.
You are telling me I have to read the book to dismiss the premise?
Yes - I think you should read a book before you criticize it.
I'm sorry that that is such a "shocking" idea to you.
Not the book, the premise. For all I know the book could be amazingly well written and very interesting. That doesn't mean that the ideas it puts forth are worth anything.
Do I have to read every crazy 911 conspiracy book before I dismiss that theory? Do I have to read "Origin of the Species" before I attempt to convince my local school system to teach "Intelligent Design"?
The central concept of this book is intellectually bankrupt. I do not have to read the book to know that. The author himself has given me more than enough exposure to his ideas through his press tours for me to come to that conclusion.
when people start calling others "facists", does it really surprise you that the other side starts engaging in the same tactics?
And I will continue to withhold judgement until I have read all of their books.
"when people start calling others "facists", does it really surprise you that the other side starts engaging in the same tactics?"
Let's say you're a very considerate person. You call a co-worker an @$$hole because they're incredibly inconsiderate. They then start calling you the same thing and say "what do you expect, I'm going to use the same tactics you do". Does that seem fair?
Take a step back and look at the actual charge being made. Do any of those characteristics apply to the philosophy of liberals? Or are they much more along the lines of this current administration?
In other words, it's not "the same tactics". One accusation has a hell of a lot more merit than the other. The question for you is:when people start unnecessary wars, engage in jingoism and fear mongering, argue for torture and unchecked surveillance, does it really surprise you that some people will call that fascism, even if it's an exaggeration?
JUST ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE:
You are WISE to have not read this book.
Almost nobody HAS read this book, or WILL.
Why? Because Goldberg has been interviewed many times trying to promote the book, and he utterly fails to defend his premise to even a level that would elicit curiosity. (Jon Stewart made an ass of Goldberg, without even trying).
That said, you are wise to NOT comment on this book, since you have not read it. Your silence (as a "concern troll") is appreciated.
'"FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' "'--Jonah Goldberg
Didn't Regan say that too? Then again, what candidate ever ran on, "I will solve some of your problems"?
Goldberg characteristically provides a grain of truth with his public deceptions.
It isn't "liberalism" a la Obama and FDR that resembles fascism; it's "neoliberalism" a la Bush, Reagan, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Leo Strauss.
The neo-liberals are the ones who helped set up the repressive central and South American police states where CIA perfected the torture techniques they're now so famous for.
Let's not forget that the real purpose of these fascist, neoliberal regimes that Nixon and Reagan developed was to turn the common wealth and resources of the people of foreign countries into privatized, "free market" windfalls for privileged financiers with military junta backing. This is what is patterned after Mussolini's fascist marriage of business and government.
So, Goldberg is right about fascism and the silver bullet, he's just trying to deceive the public into misidentifying him and his political affiliates from being the true neo-liberals or neo-fascists.
I like the last bit where they are talking about how there are some liberals who held up the Soviet Union as an example:
"You had liberals constantly looking to places like the Soviet Union as a model, you know, saying that it was a better place. You have still have these incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people talking about how Castro has a better model. You know? And --"
Who thinks that Castro has a better model in the liberal leadership of this country? Who thinks that the Soviet Union has a better model than the US who is a progressive/liberal leader in this country? Nobody. He can't provide one name. He just keeps spouting the nonsense that just because liberals and progressives want to take care of the people in the US who need help, this somehow equates them to Stalin. What a joke this guy is. And Beck is his bosum bed buddy for sure. I think he had Goldberg on there for the entire week. What farce. Equating liberals to fascists is ridiculous. This book rates right up there with Savage's tome on how liberalism is a mental disorder.
In other words: I think Jonah Goldberg is a stupid-head.
LOL - That is the most polite description of Goldberg that could possibly come out of any liberal - but hey, I'll take it. My adjectives would have had a lot of @#^%&*@! characters in them and perhaps been difficult to decipher here at MM.
"You missed Goldberg's point - fascism is wrapped in a pretty package."
No, I believe the majority of the posts in this thread indicate that they grasped his point perfectly: Goldberg believes Barack Obama is a fascist.
toofakind4147421 wrat:
>> You missed Goldberg's point
Well, I didn't. The book is a silly polemic. The reason it is not worth reading is what Leeden, a *neo conservative,* said about, as I quote him below. In one part of the book, Goldberg actually links vegetarianism to fascism.
link
The best that can be said about this is that it’s imaginative. But it’s what happens when you are bound and determined to put liberals, Socialists, Communists, fascists and Nazis into a common political home. I don’t have a final answer to this question, but it is likely that the differences between Italian fascism and German Nazism are greater than their similarities.
And since I've heard about this boogeyman government intervention where does that happen in most people's lives? It doesn't happen, that's the thing. You guys cry and whine about being so independant, and living without the government helping you. I call BS. Why? We all benefit from our government. Local and federal. Roads, police, fire, electricity, water, and so on. Without government, you'd be living in the woods in some log cabin unabomber style. So unless you're doing that, and I assume that you're not since you're posting on the internet (ahem, internet also thanks to the government you claim to not depend upon), stop yakking about not getting anything from the government. We all do.
You guys always talk about "entitlements". I would wager that most, if not everyone on here don't receive so called entitlements. What in your mind does this entail? Food stamps? Welfare? Things like that? Show me one person who really enjoys getting those entitlements. For most who do get those, they are literally life and death, as in, without food stamps, they won't be eating, and or feeding their children. Yep, horrible programs.
You use general vagueness to come off like you're not getting things from the government, but like I said, we all do. It's just that you choose to ignore the things that you get, and go after things like "entitlement". How about some specifics there chief.
Let me get the "logic" you and Goldberg are trying to use straight here:
Liberalism is a secret stealth form of fascism because it uses government handouts to create a sense of dependence within the citizenry which will make them willing to give up unnamed future rights in fear of losing what government gives them.
Now, if that were true (HUGE "IF"), what does that say about our current government which is asking the citizenry to give up certain civil liberties in exchange for protection from a vague and amorphous danger which is so terrifying that we can't be entrusted with the details of it?
Anyone that can't see that the Republican Party is a fascist right wing nut house should move to another planet
Many of you are missing his point. You are equating facism with Hitler. What he is trying to say is that blindly following a leader without analysing the path he has chosen is facist. Liberal or conservative. A good speech does not a good leader make. Obama currently has that going for him in that many followers do not even know what he stands for. The fact that he stands is good enough for them. He may make a good president, I don't know. Before I vote for him I want some more substance and less oratory, more debate and less pontification.
Vince in AZ
"What he is trying to say is that blindly following a leader without analysing the path he has chosen is facist."
Then his point is idiotic. "Fascism" is a political philosophy. "Blindly following a leader" is personal behavior. The whole concept of fascism is to control other people's behavior, not that people follow someone on their own. Unless someone can show how Obama is using belligerent nationalism and fear mongering as tools to gain that support, the argument makes no sense at all.
You obviously have access to the web, so why not go to his website and educate yourself?
As for his ability to connect with people, his oration, he moves people to get involved. In a democracy, that's a good thing.
"The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- you know, there are no perfect solutions to anything." - Cheetos
"The End of History" - Francis Fukuyama, neo-conservative and signatory of the PNAC letter.
"It's just going to take a long argument." - Cheetos
"Over 100 years of republican rule." - Karl Rove
What hacks me off about these guys is that their entire attitude towards the rest of America is: "get a job, buddy." But I have yet to figure out what worthwhile functions these talking heads and "pundits" perform. They do not produce any goods or services of merit; that is to say, they do not work for a living, and most of them never have.
They are basically political commissars as far as I can tell, making sure that the message is pounded home every day. Thousands of little Joseph Goebbels...
fas·cism Pronunciation[fash-iz-uh
m]–noun
sometimes initial capital letter
) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
I figured a definition would help you understand fascism. Please think back to recent political speeches and everything the candidates want to do for 'us'. They want to regulate business instead of allowing a free market They want to nationalize MANY things...hmm who seems to be saying this, well it isn't the 'right wing' it is the so called 'progressives'. Well that means you can forget calling republicans, conservatives, or right wingers fascists. Instead you might want to turn your head to the left and give it a good look.
This country was built on a free market and despite all the 'propaganda' to the contrary it has worked. By nationalizing sectors of private business - you lend yourself to a big brother mentality. Also I didn't overlook the meaning of fascism - I just didn't try and spin it into something it is not.
How is doing something for people a "big brother mentality"? If you want to make an argument about socialism, that's different from fascism.
Here was your definition:"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
You addressed industry and commerce, weakly at that. Complete power - who advocates that? That's more like the John Yoo theory of executive power consolidation. Forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism - are there more examples of this on the left than on the right? Aggressive nationalism - you must be joking. Racism - that's at odds with liberalism. It's not confined to the right, but while there may be Democrats who are racist they are not liberals.
So yes, you did ignore your own definition. No part of it applies, much less all of it.
When the government takes over areas of private sector it does become big brother. The message they are sending is basically that we are too stupid to do things ourselves and they know better. When they take over businesses they assume power they were never meant to have and as the saying goes absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Fascism is alive and well in this country and the problem is they trying to cover it up by calling it "programs for the people". I believe the definition still stands and though we would like to deny it this applies to liberals and some conservatives alike.
You can proclaim that social programs are a symptom of fascism all you like, that doesn't make it true. You're not addressing my questions about the rest of the definition.
"The message they are sending is basically that we are too stupid to do things ourselves and they know better."
You must have quite the inferiority complex. What they're doing is covering things that we shouldn't have to cover. Roads, for instance. Should you have to fork out a thousand bucks to fix the pothole on your street? Should you have to pay police when you call them, or firemen if your house is on fire? Why isn't this sort of thing indicative of a "big brother mentality"?
I just don't understand the viewpoint here. Is government supposed to do anything at all, outside of maintaining military force? If you didn't have public education and regulation of business, for instance, you would be creating a permanent lower class, similar to European feudalism. Think about it. Businesses would have no reason to pay workers any more than they could barely survive on, which would leave no money for children's education whatsoever. Outside of the truly rare individual who can make a fortune through entertainment or sports, children would be stuck working the same sort of jobs their parents did, with no education or skills. And so on and so on. But that would be just fine, as long as it wasn't "fascist".
Obviously it's a balancing act. Somewhere between the scenario above and outright socialism is where you want to be. If you can make an argument against things like public education or nationalized health care on the merits of those programs, that's fine, but dismissing this sort of thing because it's somehow condescending is simply idiotic.
1. Health Care which includes: Insurance Industry, Pharmacy companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, physical therapy practices etc
2. Education - this would take away control from the state and put it on a federal level. More than that it would take away a parents right to choose the best education for their child, but of course government knows best.
3. Enery - Gas, oil, electricity, green technologies
The government can't properly handle things they control now, do we really believe that they will improve in other areas? NO