On Liberal Fascism

I heard an interview on KPCC the other day with Jonah Goldberg, a "conservative columnist" at the LA Times (why do news outlets hire people to be Rightists and Leftists?) who has written a new book entitled "Liberal Fascism." I expected to hear a Coulteresque diatribe about life-hating, Jesus-denying, America-blaming, surrender-monkey liberals, and the ways in which they excrete everything Bad(TM). The book may indeed contain such -- I have not read it, although I am considering it -- but the interview was actually quite interesting.

The premise seems to be that Liberalism and Fascism, Socialism and Nationalism, share a collectivist bent, leading to similar high levels of state influence in daily life -- such as in health care, education, and employment. ("Fascism" is here reduced to its definition as a theory of government, not the history of its genocidal incarnation in Germany.) The author also pointed out that, in the 1920's and '30's, when Fascist ideas were new to the political scene, many of the system's original backers were in fact Socialists, not free marketeers.

I'm not sure what the goal is behind making these points, because -- as I said -- I have not read the book. To make the author and his fellow partisans feel self-righteous and justified in their views? To make those on the opposite end of the political spectrum defensive? To convince the moderate reader that universal health care is on a slippery slope that leads ever downward to slavery and genocide? Let's put those questions aside for now.

The author's characterizations of "conservatives" and "liberals" lined up with some, but not all, of the people I've known who've proudly worn those labels. I find the gaps and differences more interesting than the similarities. What do we mean by "conservative," "right," and "nationalist"? Are they the same"? What about "liberal," "left," and "progressive"? To what extent do these concepts line up with the major American political parties?

Let's start with the first set of labels:

• conservative: Cautious; resistant to change. Traditional. Also, tending to conserve one's resources; frugal.
• nationalist: Favoring the particular interests of one's own nation over interests shared with other nations. Emphasizing independence over dependence or co-dependence with respect to international relationships. Frequently, favoring strong central governance and a strong military.
• right: Wikipedia alleges that the term originates with the French revolution, during which representatives of the nobility (the so-called First Estate) sat to the right of the president's chair and the representatives of the common people (Third Estate) to the left.

  The clergy comprised the Second Estate; no word on where they sat. Above? Nowhere -- and everywhere?

  These origins bring together elements of both conservatism -- traditional values and social forms -- and nationalism: strong central government.

Conservatism implies a reluctance to accept unproven or ill-defined policies or commitments. Nationalism is therefore, to some degree, a logical extension, in that it emphasizes freedom from foreign entanglements that might oblige a nation to carry out future actions not necessarily in its own best interest. (World War I provides a useful object lesson.)

...And the second:

• liberal: Tolerant of change. Broad-minded; not emphasizing or placing a high degree of importance on tradition. Permissive.
• progressive: Embracing the notion that society can be improved, and favoring "reforms" to bring about this change.
• left: With respect to origins, see "right" above. Emphasizing the interests of the "common people," the lower and middle classes.

In my experience, most people of all political stripes tend to be, when at their best, hopeful and optimistic. It is therefore no surprise that those who embrace change should emphasize a change for the better and seek actively to bring it about. Historically, those most in need of such change have been those with least access to the traditional power structures of state and church. It is therefore also unsurprising that those of the "left" should constitute the most ardent supporters of progressive values.

You will notice that I have avoided the economic connotations of the above definitions and focused instead of the political (if indeed politics and economics can be separated). This is because, in recent times, the situation has become somewhat confused. Economic liberalism -- that is to say, permissive laissez-faire policies -- have ironically become associated with political and social conservatism. (Or perhaps I should say illiberalism to emphasize that this brand of "conservatism" often seems less about each of us attending to our traditional interests and values and more about me forcing you to attend to my priorities, whatever they may be.) Meanwhile, social and political liberals have embraced a brand of economic collectivism characterized by a high degree of state influence.

Pursuing that dichotomy a little further, we observe two empty squares in our matrix:

	Socially Liberal	Socially Illiberal
Economically Liberal	?	Republican
Economically Illiberal	Democratic	?

The upper-left quadrant, social and economic liberalism, is the realm of Libertarianism. Libertarian thought has a long history in America; sadly, it seems to be in decline in recent years. (Perhaps the candidacy of Ron Paul will do something for public awareness and consideration of Libertarian ideas.)

In the lower-right quadrant, we find strong enforcement of social, cultural, and behavioral norms combined with centralized economic control. This is a version of the Democratic Party in which gay rights have been replaced by the Religious Right. It is the Republican Party with the free marketeers replaced by radical Socialists. It is German-style Fascism. Let's all breathe a sigh of relief that, in this country anyway, there are very few people in this quadrant.

There is something to be said for the idea that Fascism shares a philosophy with the economic collectivists of the modern Left. But to call it a product of liberalism is false. Fascism is precisely and entirely an illiberal philosophy. It is also highly traditional -- dare we say conservative? -- in that it emphasizes cultural uniformity. To tie it more closely to the Democratic Party than to the Republican is to embrace those elements in the Republican coalition that are the most permissive -- the most liberal -- and ignore precisely those socially conformist elements that have been most ascendant in recent years.