Liberal Fascism Isn't about Fascism

I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism (yes, yes that supposedly [1] makes my opinion worthless) but I have been reading Goldberg's blog of the same name and I think liberal commentators have been basically missing the point of his project. You can argue [2], and be right, that the whole concept of "liberal fascism" is self-contradictory and silly, but if you do that you're playing Goldberg's game.

Goldberg reminds me of a friend of mine with a taste for arguments about philosophy. His secret was that he cheated. He'd argue some seemingly absurd premise but then retreat to a definition of a key word that was so different from a reasonable one that it was unrecognizable. You'd try and keep in mind his weird vocabulary, but the words maintained the force of their original meaning and it was hard to keep your argument straight. A similar thing is going on with Goldberg.

Goldberg, I think, doesn't really give a damn about the historical meaning of the word fascism. Sure he'd argue about that with you and draw you into a five day long discussion of what Mussolini's economic policy says about his place on the political spectrum, but then you're just arguing about definitions. You're right. It doesn't matter. What Goldberg is really trying to do is promote a longstanding conservative shibboleth--the idea that modern liberalism is all about restricting our freedom. This was a common talking point for Southerners during the civil rights movement and it enjoys a healthy life today in arguments against "special rights" for gay people, in the endless moaning about how "political correctness," and in so many other areas.

Goldberg wants to give that longstanding belief a clear and obviously negative name and what could be better for that purpose than "fascism." What we should be doing is explaining why liberalism is the true protector of our freedom.