Liberal Fascism

no, they attempt to redefine the term, and they fail. i have read goldberg, but not veith. however, i do know that one beget the other, and i also know from whence veith comes, and it ain't political history. ditto for goldberg. one thing that i will agree with is that some on the left use the term too lightly and too often. not all conservatives are fascist by any means. not even all right wing extremists are fascists, only the fascist feather of the right wing is. there are many other feathers on the extremes of the right wing. but just because some on the left overuse the term doesn't make goldberg's and veith's claims true.

having this debate about a couple of grudge holders misrepresenting history is not a debate worth having. if you want to discuss the importance of not rewriting history then that's fine. so, yes please, let's discuss "poisoning the well" of history. your two champions here are dangerous. they will redefine fascism to be something that it is not. your hewitt, coulter, new republic groupie people will jump on this train because they hate liberals (or pagans or gays or environmentalists or their enemy du jour) without a true understanding of history. eventually, the movement will parallel that of "intelligent design" being peddled as science. they can't stand on their own merit so they must redefine the very structures they masquerades as. as a result, these people won't know true fascism when they're standing in its shadow.

sister, it's not that i don't agree with them. it's because they're false.

as a testament to my open-mindedness, i'm here, listening to you, and hardly afraid. we disagree often and i'm never afraid to point that out, but that's just a matter of ideology. theirs is a matter of lacking factual basis.

how about for starters you revisit the king of fascism, since you're not at all familiar with true, historical fascism.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

then explain to the readers here how goldberg bends reality to turn fascism inside out such that american liberals are now fascists.

i already said that their bull isn't worth discussing, so "won't" is more on the mark. but i'll offer you this:

you go read mussolini's doctrine of fascism (linked above for your convenience) and throw in a couple of history books of the era for good measure and gain a clear understanding of historical fascism. when you're done, you come back here and show that you understand the key characteristics of fascism and note for me a few credible historians who buy goldberg's b.s. and THEN we'll talk. fair 'nuff?

by the same token, one would think that if you are so very certain that they are right, you would be able to clearly state the proper traits of fascism. or you just won't or can't. if you don't understand what fascism is, how can you be so certain that goldberg is right?

i see it this way: on my side are educated historians, history itself, and many, many, many books written since the rise of fascism in the early 20th century. i don't see the mob of historians rallying around to rewrite history with this new definition of fascism, saying "OMG for 80 years we've had this completely upside-down!" on your side, a handful of disgruntled right-wingers. ask yourself this, is goldberg concerned about spreading the "truth" or is he interested in selling his politically charged books?

it's clear why you would like for these books to be true, considering your intense distaste for anything liberal, especially liberal political leaders. all one has to do is read the vitriol of the comments on the hewitt site to see the baseless ammunition this book gives liberal-haters.

in fact, this book is born of the same fear-mongering tactics that we are so used to coming from politics on the right. it's saying "don't vote for clinton or obama or any liberal, because they're all fascists, and we all know that fascists are bad!" of course, that's after goldberg redefines fascism for us.