Jack,
If you've not read the book yourself you should at least acknowledge the level of research you've done to form an opinion on the book; another words, how much critical thinking was employed. I'll cover you on this one by merely stating that your knowledge of it seems to be li9mited to a quick, though incomplete, scan of the Wiki article on the matter. Here's the parts you left out in the "review" department from that article.
Author David Pryce-Jones wrote,
Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth-century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It's always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg's insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.[11]
Publishers Weekly said the "provocative and well-researched" book "probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics" and that the book is "seriously argued and funny."[12]
Larry Thornberry of the Washington Times called the book "a major contribution to understanding the history of political ideas and attitudes over the last two centuries and change."[13]
Ron Radosh of The New York Sun wrote that Goldberg "has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject."[14]
Vox Day of WorldNetDaily described it as "the most ideologically significant work of political non-fiction since Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind." [15]
Marvin Olasky of World Magazine wrote,
Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a flawed but useful attempt to redraw the political map. Goldberg shows how Woodrow Wilson began and Franklin Roosevelt amplified an almost-fascist concentration of power in Washington. FDR boasted of his 'wholesome and proper' buildup of power because he was leading 'a people's government.' Goldberg shows how liberals came to believe that authoritarian government is fine as long as representatives of 'the people' — themselves — are in charge.[16]
[edit] Negative reviews
Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative: "Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book."[17]
In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote that Goldberg's grouping of left-wing politics with fascism is based on weak, tenuous associations: "Some fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... This is a book that argues that Woodrow Wilson 'was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator' and that it is 'impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic.'"[18]
Blogger and journalist David Neiwert, writing in The American Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak." He wrote: "The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism."[19]
David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars."[20]
Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic: "...I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane — and ultimately self-negating — books that I have ever read. ... Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture."[21]
When Jonah Goldberg was a guest on The Daily Show to promote his book, the interview with host Jon Stewart went overtime, as Stewart took issue with many of the claims made in the book. The recorded interview was edited for broadcast. The interview ended with a laughing Goldberg and Stewart remarking "Can we air any of this?"[22]
One does get a more balanced view when reading all the published reviews there and observing their authorship, no?
The full Wiki article here:
Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One might get a more objective view of the book and the concept by a perusal of the 441 reviews of it here, if one is inclined towards "critical thinking"!
Amazon.com: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg: Books