A new book in the family

Are these reviews from people who've read it Larry?

No, believe me, it is worthy of congratulations. It's really hard. Jonah's book might be wonderful, it might be terrible. But that it exists at all counts for something.

I see most people are unfamiliar with a little thing called marketing. The book cover is Jonah's work. Nor is the flap jacket, etc. He wrote the stuff inside.

I read and enjoyed Rod's book, although I disagreed with it in many ways, and my criticisms were made in good faith I hope. Just looking at a cover and title (and subtitle) and calling a book crap doesn't speak to intellectual openness. I didn't do that with Rod's book and I would hope his readers won't do that with Jonah's.

I happen to have read Jonah's book in galley form and it is a serious work of intellectual history (http://collectedmiscellany.com/2007/07/further-thought-1.html). If you don't want to read it, fine. But don't call something crap unless you know what you are talking about.

I know this is hard to grasp for some people but fascism is more than just "gassing Jews." And you can scream all you want but there is a historical connection between national socialism and liberalism.

Some of the more staunch liberals believe smiling to be immoral because of the grave injustices to indigenous peoples and all that.

I suspect you're one of the people who's caught on to the spirit, message, and moral depth of the book long before actually reading a copy. :D

I think Rod's perspective on the degree of difficulty comes from his life experience of always writing first and foremost for the editor. I don't mean that as a slight to Rod by any means. It's the nature of the beast. He's in newspaper where editing is everything. We always react to the most stringent filter. I have to believe being a professional writer and knowing those who know best how to edit and not necessarily how to write being your first critic has to be frustrating, especially if you're reacting to it up front.

This is not unlike the craftsman who turns out only one or two projects because his criteria is first and foremost perfection. I see perfection as an ideal and not as necessarily attainable or even desireable in the stuff I do. I have a couple of friends who are like Rod in what they do. They do their work for their peers if you will.

One of the advantages I have in my work is an appreciation for the human being in all of us. I accept two things as being basically human. The critic will find something that blinds them, they can't help themselves. I can't lead them by the hand and live my own life too. And the mind will fill in the gaps, one doesn't have to make something exact to get the point across. All we have to do is give the mind some parameters and then let it run.

If Rod and me were sitting at a table in the bowels of Hell (Dallas) discussing his writing I think my first piece of advice would be to write A book and not THE book. It's about ideas and getting the reader involved. I believe the best way to transfer an idea to another is to make them a participant. Think of it as unfinished furniture if you will.

Well, what is fascism, anyway? I've always thought it was totalitarianism without government control of the means of production. But China nowadays pretty much meets that definition, yet I've never heard anyone call China fascist. So what is it?

FWIW, Lord Byron is on Rod's side:

'Tis pleasant, sure, to see one's name in print;
A Book's a book, although there's nothing in't.

Jonah Goldberg and I have had our differences, to put it mildly...

I did not know this. I would guess the difference was over your Road to Damascus reversal on Bush and the Iraq war? Frankly, I never like Mr. Goldberg. His opinion pieces, like Charles Krauthammer's always come across as red meat for the armchair conservative war-mongers.

Just the title of the book is inflammatory - Liberal Fascism. "Nobody expects liberal fascism!" With so many big US corporations raking in billions from the wars and oil-related business in the middle east, Goldberg's book is probably just a "pay no attention to those men behind the curtain" diatribe, using a lot of obvious criticism of lefties. And of course I haven't read it, nor will I with so little free time. I'm looking forward to the reviews, though.

I have to disagree about the value of writing a book. It might indeed be a worthy method of self-discipline, but I think it's pretty obvious that not every book that's written elevates us as a people, or a nation, or citizens of planet earth.

Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, Left Behind. Do we really need these titles? Do they have value outside the clues they leave about the diseased minds of the authors? I think not.

And speaking of corporate fascism and worthless propaganda books, I'm waiting for Rod to write about Bush's appointment of James "Dow 36,000" Glassman to Karen Hughes old post. If anyone had a glimmer of hope that Bush was trying of distance himself from the neo-conservative fascists, this just smash that hope like an Iraqi house hit by a Lockheed bunker-buster.

Glassman's book "Dow 36,000" and his website techcentalstation.com are the very essence of US corporate fascism. It seems only proper that Glassman should be Bush's new Director of Spin.

I see one of the chapters is called "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left." Come on, Rod. Godwin's Law was made for this book.

I see your post has touched off a bout of partisan name-calling in the comments section, which should be surprising to no one.

I see, so Hitler was a leftist, and Mussolinia was a leftist. That means Franco in Spain was also a leftist, correct? Yeah, such a Commie, keeping the mummified hand of St. Teresa of Avila with him as a holy relic, and all that. And FDR was presumably a leftist as well. So there was no political Right in the 1930s. Anyone see a problem with this logic?

"Left" and "Right" are relative terms. Nobody in the 1930s and 40s thought that Hitler was a leftist. The "National Socialists" rejected the very philosophical core of Marxism: class conflict and internationalism. Property seized from Jews ended up in the hand of individual party members, some of whom became quite wealthy. Capitalism continued. Heck, the British nationalized businesses a whole lot more than the Nazis ever did. And until the later 1930s a lot of conservative-minded business people here in the U.S. admired Hitler for his strong anti-Communism.

People stretch definitions until they become meaningless. Of course Fascism and New Deal Liberalism have roots in the same late nineteenth and early 20th century historical milieu, and they both make use of welfare state policies. They're both non-Marxist responses to the economic turmoil of the post WWI period. But to cluck over similarities between a one-party dictatorship and U.S. politics? That's like saying the Boy Scouts are sinister liberals, since the Hitler Youth also built campfires and helped little old ladies across the street.

SVS, Given your quick definition of facism (which I also recognize) I'm wondering how you think it compares with traditional american populism and for that matter crunchy conservatism which both are highly critical of laissez faire capitalism and encourage government control.

I'm not sure of you point, but I'll try and answer:

First, my version of Crunchy is not pro-government control. I'm for family over both government and business.

Second, I don't know much about "traditional american populism." I'm not even sure what that means; I doubt I am one but stand to be corrected.

Third, I'm for full-blown laissez faire only at the individual level, not at the company level. I'm more of a distributist, for allowing total laissez faire at the personal and family business level (say less than 20 people), but not at the company level or for treating a company as a person as we do today. For example, I wouldn't allow patents to outlive their creator, nor protect individuals from their actions within a company, etc. I would be all for matching big business power with laws to restrict them, while at the same time allowing full freedom for individuals or family-sized groups.

While I agree the corporation model is more efficient and creates more wealth, I don't think it just nor sustainable, as we see in the social unrest that happens due to the division of wealth under unrestrained capitalism.

If this doesn't answer your question, fire away.

even Rod barely mentions "crunchy conservatism" anymore, despite this blog's title

You're way off. This blog is not, and never has been, devoted to my book and its themes. It's about politics, religion and culture. And my kid is homeschooled once again; we had to remove him from his school because we're still trying to figure out how to educate him despite his learning disability (which was why we had to put him into a formal school in the first place, and in which he thrived for a year before his health took a turn for the worse).

I can't believe I'm getting slammed merely for having congratulated someone who hates my work for having completed his own book. I haven't even read the thing! I'm not recommending it, because I don't know what's in it, and anyway, I find his premise as dubious as he finds mine. It's good to see that Jonah finished the book, because he's been struggling over it for years, and I know how hard it is to stay focused on a book project. That's all I'm saying.

I don't know much about "traditional american populism." I'm not even sure what that means; I doubt I am one but stand to be corrected.

When I think "American populism" (at least nowadays), I think "Jacksonians". See here:

denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

can't believe I'm getting slammed merely for having congratulated someone who hates my work for having completed his own book.

Amen. Look, I think Jonah's criticisms were mostly right and that Rod overreacted to them, but that makes Rod's gracious post all the more laudable.

Rod: Congratulations to Jonah on finishing his book.
K-Man: Oh, yeah? You're book sucked!
Me [goggling]: ???

And by "you're" I meant "your." Assume that this grammar error was some kind of arcane meta-criticism of K-man that your to dumb to get.

Rod: This blog is not, and never has been, devoted to my book and its themes.

Then rename it. The blog was launched by BNet within weeks of the hardcover's publication and the title is the same. Walks like a duck, etc.

Rod:my kid is homeschooled once again; we had to remove him from his school because we're still trying to figure out how to educate him despite his learning disability (which was why we had to put him into a formal school in the first place, and in which he thrived for a year before his health took a turn for the worse).

You may not credit it, but I am truly sorry to hear that, both because it sounded like a truly wonderful school, and because any parent can understand the worry and pain of our children's health. Sincere prayers and all that.

Osvaldo:"K-Man: Oh, yeah? You're book sucked!"

Where did I say that? Look, for me to say that Rod's book was well-written and entertaining (it was), and to observe that its thesis has not held up for the ages, are not mutually exclusive statements. I haven't read Goldberg's book, nor am I likely to (life is way too short), but I'll bet my lunch and yours it is not as good a read as "Crunchy Cons" was. On some level maybe even Rod would agree: God knows there is much you could find from his work circa 2000-2002 on the Catholic Faith or the Bush Administration that we can all agree are exemplars of the writer's craft, yet we know he would not write today.

Rod, I read Johah Goldberg quite regularly. Though it seems I'm in the minority here, I'm a big fan of his column. (Haven't got the book yet.) I've seen Jonah make references to you on several occasions (both in his column AND on his video thingy with Peter Beinert, called "What's Your Problem") and they are usually quite positive. It's clear he doesn't agree with your Crunchy Con theories completely, but the way he talks, I always got the impression that you two were pretty good friends with great mutual respect. Maybe I got it wrong?

From the Amazon summary of this book:

"Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore."

Right: Adolf Hitler on the one hand, an idealistic elementary school teacher on the other. Who can tell the difference? Not Goldberg.

He fancies himself as a wit, but really, he's just cribbing from the real thing -- Seinfeld's famous "Soup Nazi" episode.

Far be it for me not to congratulate a writer on completing his book.

I just happen to agree with the many here who say "content matters." And given both the initial reviews (and the odious cover, which the author of course didn't draw but no doubt heartily approved), early indications are that the content is juvenile at best.

Dan said,

"Certainly not all conservatives are fascists, but if there's fascism in this country, it's on the right."

Sir, please review the eight years known as the "Clinton administration." It's fine to criticize Bush (I do it all the time) but amnesia is not attractive. Besides, isn't the correct slander for liberals "commie," instead of "fascist?"

If you think the word fascist is overused, find Alec Baldwin and give him a thorough thrashing.

Finally, the most fascistic thing in the Western world today is that growing and ravenous entity called Islam. Since liberals break out into hives whenever anyone dares to criticize the "religion of peace," I don't think you and your friends are on solid ground here.