The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
The Goldberg Anti-Fascist Front
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

While Jonah Goldberg, braving Redneck America, was steering a rented car all the way from Fairbanks, Alaska to Washington, D.C., the resourceful Rich Lowry set out to keep the ideology of Goldbergism alive in the popular imagination.

As his recent syndicated column [“War on Iraq actually fills liberal goals ,” LA Daily News, September 3, 2002] amply shows, Lowry is equal to this task. In his latest commentary he attempts to convert “owlish college professors” and “crusading leftwing newspaper editors” to “the conservative idea” of a Blitzkrieg against Iraq.

Never mind that the opponents of this project whom I know are traditional conservatives; that two nights ago paleoconservative Terry Jeffrey, while on Chris Matthews’s program, cited Robert Taft on what are unjustified grounds for U.S. military intervention; and that the war in question is not a “conservative idea” but a neocon obsession advocated with the usual hysterical charges of cowardice and anti-Semitism against the inevitable foot-draggers. The war must be a “conservative idea” – because National Review (now Goldberg Review) says so.

The attack on Saddam and his army, Lowry assures us, is an organized attempt to – get this – “resist fascism.”

(Emphasis added.)

Lowry isn’t joking. He claims that

“Saddam’s militaristic, one-party ideology bears a strong resemblance and has direct intellectual connections to fascism”…”So Saddam is less Che Guevara (a romantic, anti-colonial figure) and more Augusto Pinochet.”

Moreover,

“the ouster of the bloodthirsty Saddam would immediately improve Amnesty International’s evaluation of Iraq. If you’re a ‘human rights activist,’ what should be more important?”

These statements are so shamefully stupid that one has to wonder whether long-time National Review readers notice the magazine’s marked deterioration. How was Pinochet, who ran an authoritarian caretaker regime in Chile, which he eventually gave up, connected by the same “ideology” to Saddam Hussein?

And what, anyway, is this “fascist ideology” that Lowry gets on his high horse to condemn? For there are certainly many cases of one-party states, e.g., Tito’s Yugoslavia, Syngman Rhee’s South Korea, or Pinochet’s Chile, which owe nothing to Mussolini’s interwar formulation of fascist-corporatist doctrine.

Even regimes like Franco’s custodial rule of Spain merely paid lip service for a while to some Latin fascist ideal before abandoning it totally.

And didn’t National Review (in the dark days before it became Goldberg Review) actually defend these governments?

Moreover, who cares about the ratings of Amnesty International, which is heavily biased toward the left and typically gives low grades for democracy to nationalist governments in Eastern Europe while ignoring leftist breaches of civil liberties in Western Europe? And what do these ratings have to do with the question of whether to go to war against another sovereign state?

ORDER IT NOW

This sort of sloppy thinking is pandemic among minicons. But Lowry’s unsubstantiated opinions do reveal the quintessentially liberal assumptions that now lie at the heart of the Establishment “Conservative” movement – which Goldberg expresses daily (perhaps hourly) in his pontifications online, in the pages of NR, and on various TV talk shows.

Goldbergism does not have to reach far to make leftist converts. Nothing substantial separates it from the Left – except for a passion for launching wars that usually coincide with the stated interest of the Zionist Right, and which understandably scare the hell out of European leaders.

Jonah Goldberg’s reported run-in with the state police in South Dakota provoked much angry email from NRO readers who objected to his obvious contempt for fly-over country. Now he has made it back to his customary sources of inspiration and is again whooping it up for war in a piece called “War, What is Good For? Quite a lot, actually.” [September 4, 2002]

Goldbergism apparently holds that Americans don’t deserve protection from immigration – but meanwhile they’re good for a few crusades.

Paul Gottfried is Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism and Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Fascism, Rich Lowry 
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS