Jonah Goldberg
Auteur de Liberal Fascism
A propos de l'auteur
Jonah Goldberg is the Editor-in-Chief of The Dispatch. He holds the Cliff Asness Chair in Applied Liberty at the American Enterprise Institute, and is a fellow at the National Review Institute. He is a Los Angeles Times columnist and member of the "Fox News All-Stars," and he appears regularly on afficher plus NPR's Morning Edition. afficher moins
Œuvres de Jonah Goldberg
Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (2018) 261 exemplaires
Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation (2010) — Directeur de publication — 22 exemplaires
Oeuvres associées
What Is Conservatism?: A New Edition of the Classic by 12 Leading Conservatives (1964) — Avant-propos, quelques éditions — 45 exemplaires
Étiqueté
Partage des connaissances
- Nom légal
- Goldberg, Jonah Jacob
- Date de naissance
- 1969-03-21
- Sexe
- male
- Nationalité
- USA
- Études
- Goucher College
- Professions
- writer
TV producer - Relations
- Goldber, Lucianne (parent)
Gavora, Jessica (wife) - Organisations
- American Enterprise Institute
National Review
Fox News
Membres
Critiques
Listes
Prix et récompenses
Vous aimerez peut-être aussi
Auteurs associés
Statistiques
- Œuvres
- 8
- Aussi par
- 2
- Membres
- 1,716
- Popularité
- #14,972
- Évaluation
- 3.8
- Critiques
- 40
- ISBN
- 33
- Langues
- 5
- Favoris
- 7
My additional take: Goldberg recognizes that the chief difference between fascism and communism is, respectively, nationalism and internationalism. Beyond that, both promote socialist, centralized economic policies. Both can use coercive tactics to suppress dissent. He is on firm ground in pointing to the fascist tendencies of the early progressives and their heirs. Theodore Roosevelt embraced these tendencies but more so after he had already been president. T. Woodrow Wilson is probably rightly defined by Goldberg as the most fascistic president in U.S. history. As Goldberg points out to those who would say "It can't happen here," it already happened. He is also right to point out that the New Deal of FDR had its dark, fascistic side. This is one of the most interesting sections of the book. (Compare Vardis Fisher's autobiographical novel "Orphans in Gethsemane," which gives a first-hand account of the WPA by someone who was inside and found it oppressive.)
That JFK had a tendency toward fascism is a little more of a stretch, although I think there was that nationalistic, centralized tendency in his policies, which came out in various ways, especially in his rhetoric. He wasn't consistently fascistic, though, crushing the U.S. steel industry on the one hand and lowering taxes on the other. But certainly he was strongly nationalist if mildly socialist.
When Goldberg portrays sixties radicals as facists, however, he seems to be missing his own point. The most radical and violent of these people--Weathermen, Black Panthers, etc.--don't have to be compared to fascists because they were already communists; compare them to the Bolsheviks battling their opponents in the streets of St. Petersburg--that's how they saw themselves. The reason this makes a real difference is that these leftist radicals departed from the NATIONALIST fascism of their supposed predecessors. Wilson and maybe even FDR would have called out the troops and shot them long before Kent State. The sixties radical movement was not monolithic. There were various trends within it, including an instinctive individualist rebellion, but to the extent that they were socialists, most '60s rads got their socialism from their parents who had been '30s communists or other varieties of internationalist socialists. So Goldberg is straining his own conceit to make '60s internationalist socialists fit with earlier fascists. Not to say that the Kennedy/Johnson era did not lead to a climate in which socialist/communist radicals felt empowered and in which they could ally themselves with the Great Society as a platform for further radicalism, but they departed from nationalism, which you can't do and properly still be called a fascist.
Goldberg can always defend George Bush against charges of fascism by saying, at least he is not as bad as Woodrow Wilson. (One might as well say, at least he isn't as bad as Genghis Khan.) This is not for lack of trying on President Bush's part, however.
We live in an era in which even Wilson would be hard pressed to make everyone submit to his vision of nationalism. Each of us now tends to march to the beat of his own drummer, or failing that, we gravitate toward one of various drum-masters available in our fractious society. The president can't tell everyone what to think in the age of the Internet. He has too many competitors.
I would recommend reading this book in combination with "The Cult of the Presidency" by Gene Healy and "Nixonland" by Rick Perlstein, because they are dealing with some of the same material but spinning it according to different agendas.… (plus d'informations)