[Platt} Is this what an "intellectual" does, quote a bunch of like-minded critics to judge a work instead of seeing for himself? If that's the criteria, the MOQ must be next to worthless, according to "respected intellectuals."
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Goldberg is a hack that nobody takes seriously, except other hacks. There > is no shortage of negative reviews... > > Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:Repeatedly, Goldberg > fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg > uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating > liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious > belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not > just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to > do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but > he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like > an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual > clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal > Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into > humorless ideologue. > > > In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:The book reads like a Google search gone > gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... > Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about > educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... > Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check > out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any > knowledge of the topic would take seriously. > > Journalist David Neiwert, wrote in The American Prospect that Goldberghas > drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. > It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of > reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro > history. ... Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this > entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. ... Along the way, he > grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of > fascism... > > David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less an > exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet > the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean > Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as > well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars." > > Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic: "...I can report with a clear > conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and > ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. ... Liberal Fascism is > a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. ... However much > or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about > liberalism. > > In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the > Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "Apparently written > with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at > every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist." Pierce also claims > that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against > Woodrow Wilson: It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in > the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, > differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs > it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. > Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives > love war. > > > David Gordon, a libertarian scholar with the Mises Institute, wrote in his > review "Fascism, Left and Right" that "Jonah Goldberg has ruined what could > have been a valuable book." While offering agreement with some of Goldberg's > underlying thesis concerning the progressive nature of fascism, Gordon > nonetheless finds insurmountable flaws to the book. Gordon states that > "[Goldberg] seems to me too ready to call any resort to "identity politics" > fascist; and while he criticizes the 'compassionate conservatism' of George > Bush, he turns a blind eye to the effects of Bush's bellicose foreign policy > on the domestic scene. Goldberg himself supports the Iraq war; when one is > faced with a "good" war, apparently, the link between war and fascism no > longer need be of concern" Gordon's review discovered numerous historical > errors that other negative reviews failed to mention. He faults Goldberg's > claim that Rousseau is a precursor to fascism and his interpretation of > various philosopher's statements. > > In January 2010, History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, > Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet, and Michael > Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response > which several authors responded to.[27] > > Also, James did not "admire" Mussolini and the latter's claim to pragmatism > has been refuted by James scholars since 1926. When James died in 1910, > Benito was still an elementary school teacher in his twenties and fascism > hadn't even been invented yet. > > Since you are recommending this book while reading it for the second time, > you might be tempted to keep defending it. Believe me, you don't want to do > that. Jonah Goldberg doesn't know what he's talking about. Intellectually > speaking, he's not much more respectable than Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. > > > > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:38:55 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [MD] Babylonian intellectuals > > > > On 7/19/10 12:25 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'd considered this before, reading an answer of Royce to James' > critics, > > > but that Goldberg book sounds fascinatingly like a confirmation of this > > > idea. > > > > [Dave] > > Not being familiar with Royce I can't say. > > > > Goldberg basically traces the socialist/fascist impulse back to the > French > > Revolution and follows its twists and turns up to the present (2007 when > it > > was published)"it takes a village" form. He claims that James and > Mussolini > > early on were mutual admirers and that Hitler had positive things to say > > about both James and Dewey's work. In the period after WWI all the future > > "bad boys" were to one degree or another participants in the development > and > > spread of international socialism. H & M in their rise to power, partly > > because of their fear of Russia, and partly for pragmatic reasons split > off > > of the "international" strain developing a modified nationalistic > socialism > > that later became labeled fascism. He claims all of them used James "Will > to > > Believe" and "Moral Equivalent of War" married with Nietze's "Will to > Power" > > concepts to some degree or another as philosophic underpinning for their > > actions. > > > > So the real danger is not "cafeteria Christians" but "cafeteria > > Philosophers." But it seems to one degree or another we all are. > > > > Dave > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
