Talk:Liberal Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberal Fascism article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Daily Show appearance

>The book was promoted on the Daily Show on January 16th, 2008, John Stewart took great care in picking apart the concepts and ideas of the book, calling them, "medial" and overbearing."

John Stewart? How about Jon Stewart? And isn't he mostly a comedian and not a historical scholar? Why post this on Wikipedia as a serious criticism? Do these talk show hosts even have the time or desire to read through a book like this? Barry (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just watched that episode, and Stewart did not use either of those two words. But more to the point, as Barry says above, Stewart is a comedian not a historian. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just watched the interview segment again, and Jon Stewart doesn't use either of those two words. In fact Stewart doesn't really say much about the book at all. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to say anything about the book. It's an inherantly stupid concept on it's face. Next question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.174.233 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is "inherantly" Fascistic undemocratic to stifle discussion by hurling insults and demanding that the conversation be over based on a misspelled and unqualified statement Mr. "Unsigned." Why don't you at least make an attempt at an evidence based rational argument? PatrickRF (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm genuinely horrified by the suggestion that "there's no reason to say anything about the book." In fact, there is no reason why we can't participate in the process of changing this article with reasoned arguments and open ears. I catch myself occasionally assuming that all the idiots are in the right wing (being a typical liberal elitist myself, and also being rather disgusted by this book), but obviously there are adult children of all persuasions. Here's hoping that we can get a good, multifaceted article about this book by means of healthy grown-up discussion. Dunkelweizen (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Jonah Goldberg addresses it in his latest column (What 'The Daily Show' Cut Out). I have added the hyperlink to the external links section, not because the interview was that important in itself, of course ("we spent nearly 20 minutes swearing and sparring, and only six minutes aired"), but because it gives a good summary of what the author claims the book is (and is not) about, notably presenting a good description of double standards. ("Christopher Hedges … penned a book called, subtly enough, "American Fascists." Guess who he was talking about? Jesse Jackson, Paul Krugman and Bill Clinton, among other prominent liberals, have insinuated or declared that conservatives are the spiritual or intellectual heirs of Nazism … The left in particular has institutionalized argumentum ad hitlerum as a means of delegitimizing viewpoints they find objectionable … liberals routinely and cavalierly call conservatives Nazis and fascists — with the Holocaust fully in mind — without inviting an ounce of opprobrium from the same folks screeching about me.") Asteriks (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This should also bring more clarity: Hugh Hewitt's Interview with Jonah Goldberg. Asteriks (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The best definition of a fascist today is a conservative winning an argument" says Jonah Goldberg in his interview with Investor's Business Daily. Asteriks (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Removed the bit that described David Neiwert as a "well known Internet troll and propounder of bogus accusations." POV issues. Obviously. 216.145.192.6 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But it would need to be extremely well cited, which probably isn't possible. McJeff (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed, etc.

The first paragraph needs citations. In addition, I think statements making such assertions as Goldberg "echoing Orwell" constitute original research. If this is actually the way these things are presented in the book, the statements should be reworded to show that, and citations given. --EECEE (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In Orwell's famous 1946 essay Politics and the English Language he wrote: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" So when Goldberg argues that over time the term "Fascism" has lost its actual meaning and instead has descended to the level of merely being a synonym for "evil" he is indeed echoing the sentiment Orwell made more than sixty years ago. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One could just as easily say he's "echoing" the sentiments of half a dozen other authors. Unless Goldberg actually said he was echoing Orwell, your interpretation is just that - an interpretation. This is a Wikipedia article, not a book review, and as such, the inclusion of original research is not appropriate. [[1]] I'm going to put the template back up in the article. You notice I am not deleting your material but merely querying it. Please discuss here and don't turn this into an edit war. --EECEE (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
More so it is not "Original research" to summarize what books says. Citations are not needed, since the cite would be the book that is the subject of the article. Every thing is stated Goldberg argues or Goldberg says rather than stated as fact. If you want to see Goldberg's footnotes, pick up a copy of the book. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Citations are needed for Wiki articles. [[2]] If one is summarizing a point made in a book, one cites to the book, ie (Liberal Facscism, p. __ ). Again, it's an encyclopedia article, not a book review. I'm going to return the "citation needed" templates to the article. Feel free to add citations from the book. --EECEE (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to actually read what I wrote above. I have, again, removed the templates. Don't be sore because you haven't read Orwell. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute... Goldberg himself doesn't mention Orwell? The main reason that this constitutes original research is the ambiguity of suggesting that Goldberg "echoes" him. In scholarship, writers often do this in order to suggest an intellectual lineage and--sometimes--to make an argument for someone's authority. Is this why you're bringing up Orwell? Unless you can establish a good reason for doing so, I will contend that you are using original research to bolster Goldberg's position (this will merit removing the reference, of course). I'll also interpret your "haven't read" remark to EECEE as good-natured joshing, since surely in a sense we are all on the same side here. Dunkelweizen (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Which side is that? Goldberg has mentioned himself, that he is not the first make that distinction. It is not "original research." Even if he had not mentioned it, it still would not be "original research" to point out that two people have said the same thing. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If Goldberg claims his position "echoes" Orwell, say so in the article and provide the cite. The way it is now is original research, and I am putting that and the "citation needed" templates back. There is now a "request for comment" section at the end of this page. Please don't remove the templates again until others have weighed in.
Please take the time to acquaint yourself with proper Wiki procedures. --EECEE (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Which side? The I-want-Wikipedia-to-have-good-articles side. Now, to put this another way, my problem with this Orwell mention is that it just doesn't seem to merit inclusion. I suspect that Goldberg, like many authors, is pointing out that his ideas have aspects in common with someone reputable (if ironically left-wing), in order to bolster his position. That's fine, but again, why bring this up in a Wikipedia article? With Goldberg's use, it seems POV. Outside of Goldberg's use, it seems trivial. Does my position make sense? Dunkelweizen (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well then we are indeed on the same side. On topic: George Orwell is one of the best known commentators on the subjects of totalitarianism, fascism, and the political use of language. All three of those things are the subject of this book. I fail to see any way this inclusion could be considered POV. I am not assuming bad faith, but knowing how controversial this book is, I am curious as to why an editor would would object to this reference. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I had given you some leeway because I assumed you were new and just unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules, policy, and style. I see from your User Talk page history that you have a four-year history of warnings for ignoring those rules and policies, including several 24 hour blocks for engaging in edit wars. Your bewildered head scratching over basic rules of style and etiquette only makes you look worse. --EECEE (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS to Steven Andrew Miller re your history note: Goldberg was not nominated for a Pulitzer at all. [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EECEE (talk • contribs) 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care, as it doesn't have anything to do with this book, but that link doesn't demonstrate any thing. He was in fact nominated. That the Pulitzers have open nomination process does not change this fact. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not an "open nomination process" at all. Names are submitted; a Pulitzer committee does the nominating. Repeat, an entry is not a nomination, any more than someone sending your name into AMPAS makes you an Oscar nominee. You could look it up, y'know:
Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission.[[4]] The three finalists in each category are the only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees. [[5]] --EECEE (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You sure seem to have a lot invested in this. Has Goldberg personally wronged you? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that good information thing is such a hassle. --EECEE (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is just rather interesting, since the nomination is for his syndicated column, and not for this book, that you seem so intent on this. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point. --EECEE (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And that point was? That you don't understand that someone who is nominated is a nominee? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Well, good luck to ya, little buddy. --EECEE (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, "little buddy" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work, EECEE. You've humiliated him with the facts. It's a pretty common occurrence around here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments: Original Research and Need for Citations

As seen from the preceding section, there is strong disagreement as to whether parts of the article include original research, and also as to whether citations are needed in the introductory paragraph.

Specifically, the inclusion of a statement about Goldberg "echoing" George Orwell's views, absent any indication that Goldberg himself claims to be echoing that view, has raised the "original research" question.

Secondly, the absence of citations in the introductory paragraph, which appears to summarize Goldberg's thesis, has been queried.

Any helpful comments would be appreciated. 05:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldberg does in fact mention Orwell in the book. Here is a paragraph from page 4: "In short, 'fascist' is a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words - 'racist,' 'sexist,' homophobe,' 'christianist'- for similar puposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay 'Politics and the English Language': 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."'"
I have added quotes to backup the Orwell and "bigotry and genocide are more Nazi than Fascist" portions and have cited both quotations. Are there any more portions you believe need citation or constitute original research?--Rbernard80 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to do this. It looks fine. However, would you mind including a citation for the earlier part where it discusses Goldberg's notions about the origins of fascism? I think something is needed there, but I realize my placement of the "citation needed" template was confusing.
I've removed the template in the article, as well as the "request for comments" templates here.
I expanded the part about Orwell to make it clear that Goldberg actually mentioned him, and in what context. If you would like to rewrite for style, no problem. --EECEE (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a quote and citation for the portion you mentioned. "Goldberg argues that both Modern Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) and Fascism descended from Progressivism, and in fact that prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States"[1]"
Also slightly reconfigured the Orwell sentence mostly just to get Goldberg's argument to appear before Orwell's.Rbernard80 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks very much. --EECEE (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reviews

I think a different quote is needed for the American Spectator review. The current entry is just the opinion of the reviewer about the use of the term "fascism" and not a review of the contents of the book. --EECEE (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the Alterman quote from the Nation. There are more relevant statements than the "google search" one. Dunkelweizen (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you wish to add something from the review? Okay by me if so. --EECEE (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, but it might be next week. And I wonder why there is even any question whether it is a review!? I hope that editor explains his point, because that was strange. Dunkelweizen (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a different quote from the Tomasky review, a little more relevant I think. If anyone can come up with a more succinct wrap-up, feel free to use it. --EECEE (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ad hominem "reviews"

A significant fraction of the reviews of this book reviews can be summarized as "OMG! WTF?": they consist of the reviewer expressing outrage at the book's title, cover and/or thesis¹ but making no attempt to engage with Goldberg's argument. Such reviews have no place in an encyclopedia article. If we're going to mention such reviews, we need to

1. In fact, quite of few of these non-reviews never get beyond the title or cover.

BTW, it would be wrong to mention Tomasky's bizarre diatribe without citing this. Here's an extract:

He concedes essential parts of the book’s argument while insisting that they are trivial, offers trivial objections as if they were essential, and throws in a few non-sequiturs, insults, and rank distortions to pad the piece. His one innovation is to extend his insults from me to my readers (who are said to have too much time on their hands), and then to conservatives generally. His review, though long, is a time-saver: Anyone who wants to know what the book’s liberal detractors are saying can consider it one-stop shopping.

Cheers, CWC 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. While some of the excerpts included in the article may consist of "OMG/WTF" type comments, the reviews themselves are for the most part just as complete as the more glowing reviews. I agree with the other editor that some elaboration of the Alterman review would be helpful, for instance.
BTW, some folks might consider it "wrong" not to include Goldberg's response to every review, but that's not the purpose of this article. --EECEE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Having only found this page by a complicated line of link hopping, I'm not entirely sure if my opinion is valid here, but it seems to me that if you're going to insert a section on reviews, it might be helpful to pick quotes that are more relevant to the work itself rather than the title. The work is what I'm interested in hearing opinions on, the title is over and done with once you open the book. Old Man and the Sea could have been called Pretty Pretty Fairy Unicorn Princesses and still would have been a good work. Likewise the little red book of Mao could've been called Peace, Love, and Happiness: The secret to finding it and would still be, well, Mao's little red book. 68.51.100.13 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Dutch1033
Well, Eric Alterman had a different take on the matter: "It's a rare book, indeed, that can be fairly judged by its cover, but I really do think that a smiley face with a Hitler mustache tells you all you will ever need to know about Liberal Fascism." On that note, I'm going to edit the discussion of his review in The Nation. Dunkelweizen (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)