Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

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

[jackdale]

I have not read the book. It is concept to which I object.

I have taught courses in political theory.

The concept of "liberal fascism" does not even fit with ideas like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" . It is simply a muddled idea from a muddled mind ascribed to by muddled brains.

I have better things to do, i.e., a two week trip through the Broughtons on a Nauticat 37.

BTW - I am not a liberal.

[ssneade]

Four months ago, Californians were hit with the biggest tax increase in our state's history – more than $12 billion in new taxes on everything from income and sales to vehicle license fees. Since then, tax proponents have proposed 31 new taxes that they predict will generate more than $40 billion in the first year. On top of that, some legislators have singled out oil and tobacco products for massive new tax hikes. These are taxes that the people will pay, not just the corporations.

The Neighborhood Market Association represents more than 1,800 independent grocers and small businesses in California who have been and will be hit by many of these taxes, particularly tobacco taxes. Tobacco products, popular or not, are a key part of our business. These products draw customers to our stores and result in the sale of a variety of other goods. They drive sales, which ultimately leads to more sales tax revenue being collected for our state, and enable store owners to provide more jobs in their communities.

Charging a premium for tobacco products will also result in increased theft. One member of our association, who owns a convenience store in El Cajon, recently reported that more than $10,000 worth of cigarettes were stolen from his store by his employees. Not coincidentally, this occurred in the weeks following the imposition of a federal excise tax increase on tobacco products. An additional tax increase by the state will further encourage this type of crime.

The well-being of our businesses should matter to the community because, collectively, our members employ more than 21,000 people and generate more than $3.6 billion of gross revenue annually.

It's time tax proponents in the Legislature heard from California's retailers. In this economy, many retailers have folded, and others are fast approaching their breaking point. Asking retailers to absorb the impact of more tax increases is a perilous proposition. New taxes have the clear potential to drive down retail sales, further eliminate retail jobs and heighten our state's budget crisis.

“I have been forced to lay off 37 percent of my work force, including an employee who has been with me since 1981,” said Amir Oram, of the Market Place in City Heights. “No doubt about it, the economy is bad, but tax increases and the added cost of doing business are what worry me.”

Yes, our state faces an unprecedented budget crisis. But there is arguably no better way to grow revenue than through a robust economy – not through tax increases that could force weakened retailers to their breaking point and eliminate more jobs and businesses.

In the last election, voters made it clear that the tax-and-spend model is not the answer to California's budget crisis. In fact, our members have been clear that we need a break from higher taxes after what we've all been through the last few months.

“Our 2,000 small business owners and their 21,000 employees are depending on our wonderful public servants in Sacramento to do the right thing and not raise any more taxes in this terrible economic environment,” said Mark Arabo, President and CEO of the Neighborhood Market Association. “Raising taxes will only put more small businesses out of business and put more workers on the unemployment line. There is a solution for this complex situation, and making it more difficult for small businesses to survive is not it.”

“Business as usual” tax increases – under the present circumstances – could very well put us out of business. The answer to this state's budget woes must be found elsewhere – in systemic changes that reduce expenses and eliminate waste, inefficiency and fraud.

Dabish is vice president of government relations and community outreach for the Neighborhood Market Association, based in La Mesa, which represents store owners in California, Nevada and Arizona.

[sck5]

"In the last election, voters made it clear that the tax-and-spend model is not the answer to California's budget crisis. "

how do you feel about borrow and spend? thats what the repubs have been doing instead of taxing. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and Milton Friedman is being proved right. He once said that there is no such thing as a tax cut, just a tax delay - if you keep on spending the bill does eventually come due.

Stop whining about paying for things which were bought on credit. Californians were living there all the while, using all those services that were paid for on credit, and electing representatives (Republicans too, in fact they INSISTED on continuing doing this) to keep right on doing it. Now that the bill came all you can think of is that you dont want to pay it! Well join the club - I dont want to pay my bills either but part of being an adult is being responsible for your decisions. So dont expect the rest of us to bail you out - We have our own morons in charge of our state and our own hole is deep enough without adding yours to it.

[sailaway21]

sck5,
You might consider a couple of factors in the defense of the average Californian.

While you can certainly blame them for consistently re-electing profligate spenders of the Democrat and liberal Republican variety, there is some question as to the malfeasance of those elected officials throughout the state. Given that government is the largest employer within the state, it's reasonable to expect that Californian legislators of every stripe would take care to represent their largest voting block. The public service and teachers unions are very strong and to say that those employees of the state are highly paid would be an understatement, and of course every one of those employees votes with an eye towards maintaining the status quo. Every one wants police and fire protection as well as excellent teachers, but those are not jobs that one traditionally views as the path to riches. In California those professions pay substantially more than elsewhere in the country and the pensions are equally lucrative.

I think you'll find the following articles interesting, if not shocking.

The $200,000 club | pensions, pension, city, county, public - News - OCRegister.com
George F. Will - Pension Time Bomb - washingtonpost.com
Fat paychecks and pensions spell trouble - Jun. 3, 2008

And it's not just California....

Public-sector pensions already cost twice as much, per retiree, as the average private-sector pension, according to the U.S. Labor Department. This leaves cities and states no easy way out. They should not renege on their commitments, but the other options — raising taxes or cutting services — could prove so severe that bankruptcy would look like a sensible alternative.

Our view on retirement benefits: Public-employee pensions put cities, states in tight squeeze - Opinion - USATODAY.com

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

I have taught courses in political theory.

And that my good friend, is the truly scary part.

I taught Grade 12 using a mandated curriculum from the province of Alberta - itself among the more conservative provinces. We studied Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Sweden and the US and compared them to Canada.

I once gave a very convincing argument for Reaganomics. One student proudly announced the she knew why I left the US case study to the end - it was the answer. The other, more attentive students, let her know what my politics actually were.

And your studies included?

BTW - I have also lived in Texas - Clear Lake. Did some grad work there. And that is where I learned to sail.

[ssneade]

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!

Tokens include a bus, a teleprompter, a sprig of arugula and a waffle iron.

Wanna play? No??? Too bad, you're already playing... And quite frankly, in this game, nobody wins

[ssneade]

[ssneade]

interesting quote:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]

[ssneade]

another from teddy roosevelt:
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation of all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." [Teddy Roosevelt in a speech before the Knights of Columbus]