Liberal Fascism

Jonah Goldberg, a prime example of nepotism run amok, has been the major target of the left blogosphere lately (when they're not going after Hillary Clinton and/or the entire Republican stable) for his new book, which so far seems to prove something, but not, I think, what Goldberg had intended. John Cole sums it up nicely:

First there was Godwin’s Law. Then we had the less noticeable Kevin’s Law and Cole’s Law. Now, after reading the Jonah Goldberg interview in Salon, our commentariat has come up with the “Goldberg Principle”:

You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.

There you have the key concept in right wing discourse.

Update:

Dave Neiwert has concise and deadly review of Goldberg's magnum opus, as well as comments on Goldberg's response. Regrettably, Neiwert is holding off on any further substantive commentaries until Goldberg actually addresses the basic issue in the review, which he has not done -- and will not do. He can't. He doesn't seem to be equipped intellectually to deal with substantive questions, nor, apparently, emotionally to deal with disagreement (another key element in right wing discourse). What will happen is that Goldberg will slough off the criticism and loudly proclaim that, because Neiwert is not responding to his response (inadequate and beside-the-point as it is), that proves the invalidity of Neiwert's original comments. This is a standard tactic, and one that Neiwert should be aware of. After all, it's this kind of projection that has fueled the right wing noise machine for a generation or more.

Actually, Neiwert has several posts on Goldberg's book, here, here, and here. You might wonder why I -- and more important, Neiwert -- am spending so much time on a logically challenged piece of right-wing propaganda. Neiwert's purview is tracking hate groups and their doings in America. That's mostly what he and Sara Robinson report on. I'm interested in the overall effect of the semantic distortions by the right and left and how they affect our understanding of the reality of our political context. (You may have noticed that I have much more to say about distortions on the right; that's because, as far as I can tell, there are more of them and they are more serious.) So Goldberg's book, as ludicrous as it is, is important because it's another effort to warp the public discourse toward an extremist position. The fact that Goldberg's thesis and his arguments in support of it are so much bullshit simply won't register with most of his readers -- and, since they're likely to be on the right to begin with, that will be because they don't want to think critically about this sort of thing. It is, however, ammunition: it's published, it's out there, and so it becomes justification for their position, no matter that it has no real substance.