House of Eratosthenes

Back early last year when I was busy critiquing Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, the question came up frequently: Why would I bother? Isn’t it a problem to be treating a book of junk political philosophy like this with more respect than it deserves? Isn’t flat-out mockery perhaps the better response?

Well, as I noted then:

[T]he problem with dismissing Liberal Fascism out of hand is that the mainstream media certainly haven’t dismissed the book out of hand: Goldberg’s been on a regular rotation of cable-talk shows since the book’s release, and more certainly are on the way. As much as we might wish this noxious meme would choke on its own fumes, it’s clear that isn’t going to happen: the “liberal media” is all too happy to present this fraud as “serious,” and there are going to be large swaths of the public lapping it up. (There already are, in fact.) Pretty soon any discussion of actual fascists will be dismissed with a wave of the “ah, you libruls are the real fascists” hand.

Heh. I know of a great way the well-intentioned liberal can head that one off at the pass. Simply take some of that famous liberal tolerance for diverse and even opposing viewpoints, and show us some of it.

What’s being done here? “I don’t like Glenn Beck and I don’t want you to watch him anymore.” Glenn Beck is derided, castigated, excoriated, plainly identified as someone who is a pariah, or should be. And why is that? Because Beck’s use of the word “fascism” is disliked.

Well let’s look up what the word actually means; since Neiwert, incredibly — at least within these two essays — never bothered to do so. Even though he claims this is the crux of his complaint.

Wikipedia:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Merriam-Webster:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Dictionary.com:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

There’s one aspect that is common among all these three: The suppression and/or elimination of any opposition.

And there is one aspect that is common to all the manifestations of liberalism we have seen, at least this year since the inauguration of Barack Obama: The Battle Is Over And We Have Won. This is a more prominent feature of 2009 liberalism than the discussion of any policies, how one guiding principle might be more beneficial for the nation than another. No, the liberalism this year knows, is dedicated to the promotion and superiority of…itself. Just like classical fascism. Nobody dares to oppose us, and if anyone does, we will be sure and address that. It starts with harmless belittling and mocking. But it’s always treated as some kind of a pressing problem that someone who can’t quite see the light — like Glenn Beck, for example — still has a voice.

And like classical fascism, liberalism treats this with a sense of alarm. Even if the dissenters have no real power, none at all over & above basic freedom of speech. There is still the sense in liberal-land that this singular ability, all by itself, irrefutably manifests that there is something in the cosmos that is not quite right, and ought to be fixed.

That “Their Policies Are Ruining The Country!” dog just won’t hunt anymore, for reasons that are obvious. And so this is all that’s left: Conservatives can still say stuff. Too many people are still listening to them. They haven’t been gutterballed enough quite yet.

Just like with multi-level marketing, there is this paper-thin veneer of a suggestion that an argument with some real meat is about to be presented. When I read things like “Since I’m a student of the subject of fascism, I’ve written a lengthy response at my blog,” I can’t help but gather the impression that I’m about to read something educational. But at the blog, when you open the page, from top-to-bottom it’s a bunch of “okay here’s something I can use to make Beck look ridiculous…and I follow through…now on to the next thing…and I follow through…and the next, and the next.” There is no discussion anywhere of what fascism is, or how Beck is ostensibly twisting its meaning around in any way. The closest you get to that, is a repeated insinuation that he has done so. And lots of bullying instructions that you shouldn’t watch his show anymore.

Myself, I don’t really watch Glenn Beck’s show. I’m just an enthusiast of unintentional irony. And I think I’m looking at a mother lode right here.

I agree with your point but I wouldn’t cite Wikipedia as an authority on what fascism is. That’s one of the worst articles on fascism I’ve ever seen.
- Apollodorus | 04/13/2009 @ 23:27
Yup, but you know the definitions only get so good with that word. It’s been subjected to abuse through overuse.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2009 @ 00:28
I’m a Beck subscriber … radio show. Most of the time he’s entertaining. He checks his facts. And if it turns out he’s wrong he says he’s wrong.

And when he says that anybody who believes what he says just because it came out of his mouth is an idiot.

His detractors jumped on that by saying that he himself dismisses himself as an “entertainer”, so you should, too (Shut Up!).

But that’s not what he was saying at all.

He was saying don’t believe anything that comes out of anybody’s mouth just because it came out of their mouth. He’s saying, encouraging his audience to think for itself.

Which is only right.

His way of saying, “yeah, listen to me, but don’t just take my word for it.”
- philmon | 04/14/2009 @ 17:23
I was hoping Neiwert would come on here himself, spoiling for a fight or something.

The guilt-by-association argument with Henry Ford is one of the most patently absurd things I’ve seen in quite some time. Of course it’s true that Ford had notorious antisemitist leanings and was uncomfortably chummy with Nazi Germany…and, also, that Wendell Wilkie lost an election. What of it. Taxing the rich still doesn’t (or might not) work. I’ve got a picture of FDR having a meeting with Uncle-Joe Stalin; does the Neiwert logic demand I dismiss everything FDR ever said, too?

Ah well, I guess it’s an argument not to be had.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2009 @ 17:41

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

David Neiwert Doesn’t Want You to Watch Glenn BeckMonday, April 13th, 2009

David Neiwert Doesn’t Want You to Watch Glenn Beck
Monday, April 13th, 2009