Things I don't understand:
(1) Who decided it was a good idea to waste a New York Times review on Liberal Fascism?
(2) David Oshinsky's highly charitable review, which claims "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." Is it now grounds for praise to be less idiotic than Michael Savage? Have we really sunk that low?
Goldberg may believe that by making his opinions more inflammatory they become more substantial.
He really isn't much above Ann Coulter in that regard.
Where Ann might say might say "godless" or "degenerate", Goldberg simply denounces as "fascistic".
David Oshinsky seems to enjoy taking a dip in the same pool of verbal excess as when he says, for example, that JFK had a "Nazi-like cult of personality that he buffed to gleaming perfection."
The review is lacking in that it never tells us what constitutes oppressive liberal "government coercion" or who "America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites" really are - but Oshinsky seems to concede that these are indeed ugly realities propagated by the Left.
Posted by: Howard | January 01, 2008 at 06:16 PM
If only Jonah Goldberg had accepted my offer of help. My version of "Liberal Fascism" would have gotten a much better review.
Posted by: Jon Swift | January 03, 2008 at 12:55 PM