Whoops! Sorry, that just what I wanted to see. Instead, this was just another boring, predictable left-wing echo chamber attack on that "awful Wing-nut" Glenn Beck and his horrible not-liberal listeners. Left-wingers will enjoy the slag-fest, anyone looking for enlightenment will be disappointed. I know Bob has to throw *some* red meat to the lefties - but attacks on Glenn Beck - Bob, you can do better.

Drones or Droids?
academe + a dash of Henry Ford = these bores.
It's as though they spent years and years stationary. Deprived of sunlight and fresh air.
Willingly?
meh

When Will You People On The Left Learn: Calling Conservatives Racists At Every Turn Makes Americans Hate You.

Ok, so let me get this straight leftists': 1. If you talk about Van Jones YOUR A RACIST. 2. If you talk about amensty and your not a illegal immigrant YOUR A RACIST. 3. If your against open borders YOUR A RACIST. 4. If your white and you don't hate yourself YOUR A RACIST. 5. If your white & against anti-white legalized discrimination (aka affirmtive action) YOUR A RACIST. Do I got it right?

Quoting dkschwartz: Ok, so let me get this straight leftists':

1. If you talk about Van Jones YOUR A RACIST.

2. If you talk about amensty and your not a illegal immigrant YOUR A RACIST.

3. If your against open borders YOUR A RACIST.

4. If your white and you don't hate yourself YOUR A RACIST.

5. If your white & against anti-white legalized discrimination (aka affirmtive action) YOUR A RACIST.

Do I got it right?

NOPE

Quoting rcocean: Whoops! Sorry, that just what I wanted to see.

Instead, this was just another boring, predictable left-wing echo chamber attack on that "awful Wing-nut" Glenn Beck and his horrible not-liberal listeners. Left-wingers will enjoy the slag-fest, anyone looking for enlightenment will be disappointed.

I know Bob has to throw *some* red meat to the lefties - but attacks on Glenn Beck - Bob, you can do better.

Maybe you could tell us what they get wrong -- help balance the picture.

When Zaitchik describes Glenn Beck's mission as "bringing Mormons to power, perhaps in the form of Mitt Romney" does he have any written evidence for this position, or is this a complete conjecture?

The way these two talk about Mormonism and the formation of the religious right belies the same sort of paranoid disparaging tone that Beck uses to describe the progressive movement.

Samson Go mic, picked one up from amazon, think they have them at best buy too http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001R76D42?tag=oneff-20
And here is a review from some kid who figured out how to sound clear for cheap, no matter how crappy ones build in sound card may be (bypassed with usb audio). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGl0tURy--0 learn from the kid, get a mini condenser mic, I did.
(further side note) mic type/quality can be sort of interesting, here is a dynamic type http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLtleYMFX3s

How did this get posted? Unlistenable.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Samson Go mic, picked one up from amazon, think they have them at best buy too

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001R76D42?tag=oneff-20

And here is a review from some kid who figured out how to sound clear for cheap, no matter how crappy ones build in sound card may be (bypassed with usb audio).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGl0tURy--0

learn from the kid, get a mini condenser mic, I did.

(further side note)

mic type/quality can be sort of interesting, here is a dynamic type

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLtleYMFX3s

I understand your point, Jon, but this is the sort of post that can get you flagged for spam. You need to be very careful to indicate why you're posting something like this.

Quoting yggdrasil: The way these two talk about Mormonism and the formation of the religious right belies the same sort of paranoid disparaging tone that Beck uses to describe the progressive movement.

Absolutely right. Free speech is only for liberals. No one points out the ridiculous spewings of the left (except for Fox, et al). That's because the left is presumed to be not only correct but enlightened as to how the country should proceed. We're all bozos on this bus. A little humility is what is called for.

Quoting badhatharry: Absolutely right. Free speech is only for liberals. No one points out the ridiculous spewings of the left (except for Fox, et al). That's because the left is presumed to be not only correct but enlightened as to how the country should proceed.

We're all bozos on this bus. A little humility is what is called for.

Most of this thread seems composed of people complaining because they disagree with what somebody else has said and claiming that means they've been victimized. Sheesh, grow up.

It's not that I disagree with the Zaitchik, a lot of what he brings up is simply factual. A lot of what he says is broad paranoid speculation as well. It's this parallel between the history and the paranoid theory in oder to feed a left wing perspective on Mormonism and religious conservatism that I find deeply ironic since it is Beck's own style of criticising the progressive movement. I mean, if the dialoguers were expressing an opinion that Beck is bad, maybe even irresponsible, op Ed journalism I would agree. But claiming that he is trying to start his own religion or imagines a Mormon take over of the United States, that's nutty.

Quoting AemJeff: Most of this thread seems composed of people complaining because they disagree with what somebody else has said and claiming that means they've been victimized. Sheesh, grow up.

Actually the pleading I did for humility has to do with knowing that no side is absolutely right about anything. It would behoove all of us to notice our bias and to have an open mind. That has nothing to do with victimization. I have no problem with the bias per say. It's part of our culture. But the commenter was correct to point out that people who criticize the likes of Beck seem to ignore the goofballs on their side.

Quoting yggdrasil: It's not that I disagree with the Zaitchik, a lot of what he brings up is simply factual. A lot of what he says is broad paranoid speculation as well. It's this parallel between the history and the paranoid theory in oder to feed a left wing perspective on Mormonism and religious conservatism that I find deeply ironic since it is Beck's own style of criticising the progressive movement. I mean, if the dialoguers were expressing an opinion that Beck is bad, maybe even irresponsible, op Ed journalism I would agree. But claiming that he is trying to start his own religion or imagines a Mormon take over of the United States, that's nutty.

So perhaps you could be more specific about what you think Beck is doing that is irresponsible and/or bad. If what you are talking about is his conspiracy theories you are correct that they exist on both sides. Everyone is engaged in creating narratives which fit their aims.

Well, this was a sort of piling on session against Glenn Beck, but at least it was on a figure like Glenn Beck, who I still believe is a clown.
It was suggested that he uses vapor rub or some other substance to induce on the spot tears. Is this true? If it is it is more evidence he is a performing artist.
My only wonder is the extent to which he buys into his own act. On that I am unsure.
I do know this though, he can be entertaining. You don't even have to be conservative to see that, his delivery is so over the top it is often like looking at a spectacle. I think that has as much to do with his following or more, than his ideas. Total following, not the ones animated and insane enough to show up to a rally with some crazy scribbling on a sign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-KGukuety0#t=1m20s
wait for the end... this was posted before but deserves another sampling for those that forgot. This is performance, whether he buys into it or not.

Quoting JonIrenicus:
this was posted before but deserves another sampling for those that forgot. This is performance, whether he buys into it or not.

Glenn Beck loves Joe Klein.

Of course America was a kind of Judeo-Christian nation right on up through the 19th century. The fact that it no longer is is itself a Judeo-Christian achievement in a way, a fact that the evangelical right cannot get its head around. Or the secular left either for that matter. The absence of historical awareness among our educated elites is truly astonishing, especially given that our cultural history is so paradoxically interesting. I chalk it up to the influence of the Sixties counterculture (LSD, Vietnam) and the false consciousness of left-over Marxism among our Jewish intelligentsia, itself a product of the radical anti-clericalism of the French Enlightenment (as opposed to the Anglo-Scotch variety). The Holocaust may have also played a part. In any case a reform in Ivy League education is certainly in order. The absence of ideas has consequences.

How lovely! Another 2-voice monovlog pile-on in which whether the right is wacko is a given and the only intellectual work to be done is of the "let me count the ways" variety. Certainly Mormon Orson Scott Card or Wiccan anarcho-capitalist Eric S. Raymond could not have had anything of interest to say on this topic. Once again, the absent are guilty.

You put your finger on it, I think blurring the line between conspiracy theory and op-ed journalism is irresponsible when either side does it.

Quoting glennhowardsecure: How lovely! Another 2-voice monovlog pile-on in which whether the right is wacko is a given and the only intellectual work to be done is of the "let me count the ways" variety. Certainly Mormon Orson Scott Card or Wiccan anarcho-capitalist Eric S. Raymond could not have had anything of interest to say on this topic. Once again, the absent are guilty.

Meh. Beck has a prominent position and is responsible for a significant segment of public opinion. Left, Right, whatever - the existence of demagogues with this sort of reach is a bad thing. And this guy is a real disingenuous piece of shit. The complaints about one-sided-ness fail to take into account who he is and what he represents. (On top of their obvious falsity.)

Quoting glennhowardsecure: Certainly Mormon Orson Scott Card or Wiccan anarcho-capitalist Eric S. Raymond could not have had anything of interest to say on this topic. Once again, the absent are guilty.

Yikes, Orson Scott Card? I love the guy's books, but he doesn't have any particular expertise on any policy areas other than Mormonism, and has some seriously nutty political beliefs.

Quoting yggdrasil: You put your finger on it, I think blurring the line between conspiracy theory and op-ed journalism is irresponsible when either side does it.

But again...Those who engage in conspiracy theories are offering their opinions as do op-ed writers. They probably don't identify that their theories are conspiracy theories because these days that's a pejorative. But truth be told..there are such things as conspiracies. Micheal Moore still swears that his film about 9/11 was accurate. He took a lot of trouble to connect the dots. Some agreed with him and some rejected his assessment. I think Beck is looking at history in a particular way and trying to make the case that for a very long time the progressive movement has been trying to move this country towards socialism. He actually makes the case in some pretty convincing ways, as Moore did. But whether the dots he is trying to connect are a deliberate conspiracy or 'just the way things go' is the question that needs to be examined.

Quoting AemJeff: Meh. Beck has a prominent position and is responsible for a significant segment of public opinion. Left, Right, whatever - the existence of demagogues with this sort of reach is a bad thing. And this guy is a real disingenuous piece of shit. The complaints about one-sided-ness fail to take into account who he is and what he represents. (On top of their obvious falsity.)

What he is and what he represents? I guess that he is and represents something you don't like, but gee whiz! there's all that free speech stuff to consider. And as for demagogues' is it OK with you that there are demagogues on the left or don't you call them that.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: The absence of historical awareness among our educated elites is truly astonishing, especially given that our cultural history is so paradoxically interesting.

Things are just too complicated for cable news....yawn! The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity.

Quoting badhatharry: What he is and what he represents? I guess that he is and represents something you don't like, but gee whiz! there's all that free speech stuff to consider.

And as for demagogues' is it OK with you that there are demagogues on the left or don't you call them that.

Harry, please don't put words in my mouth. You've never heard me say there are no left-wing demagogues. He's a liar. He represents dishonesty, a lack of respect for intellectual standards (you know, like evidence and accuracy), and he flirts with racism as a demagogic tool. The right to speak freely includes my right to call people like Beck (and Coulter, and Limbaugh, and Hannity) lying pieces of shit. The difference between me saying that and much of what they have to say is that what I've said has a basis in fact.

There's a difference between documenting a trend historically and playing the paranoid card. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a good example of a mature exploration of the connection between progressive and authoritarian movements in the 1930's. Unlike Beck ( and apparently Posner and Zaitchik), Goldberg draws a distinction between a movement's historical roots and its current ambitions. Goldberg also does not conflate groups with loose associations into one big "fascist" or "communist" category in order to disparage their positions. I know you think that I am quibbling over a minor point but I really believe that there needs to be a distinction between trying to tar your opponents with the broadest brush possible and a dispassionate examination of historical influences.

Quoting yggdrasil: There's a difference between documenting a trend historically and playing the paranoid card. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a good example of a mature exploration of the connection between progressive and authoritarian movements in the 1930's. Unlike Beck ( and apparently Posner and Zaitchik), Goldberg draws a distinction between a movement's historical roots and its current ambitions. Goldberg also does not conflate groups with loose associations into one big "fascist" or "communist" category in order to disparage their positions. I know you think that I am quibbling over a minor point but I really believe that there needs to be a distinction between trying to tar your opponents with the broadest brush possible and a dispassionate examination of historical influences.

There is almost no-one (who doesn't post at The Corner) who takes Jonah's polemic seriously.

Are you saying there was no overlap between progressive and fascist movements in the early 20th century?

Quoting yggdrasil: Are you saying there was no overlap between progressive and fascist movements in the early 20th century?

That's quite a leap. I'm saying that Jonah wrote a book so bad that when he compiled the available good reviews on the NRO Liberal Fascism blog, all but one of those were by people who post on the website he founded. The outlier was Tom Wolfe. (Actually going back to look, Vox Day hasn't, to my knowledge, posted on The Corner either, not that that changes much.)

[QUOTEyggdrasil

There's a difference between documenting a trend historically and playing the paranoid card.

Well yes there is, but sometimes paranoia turns out to be right. For instance there were many people who thought Hitler should be appeased and he could be brought around.However there were those who saw him for the brute he turned out to be. At the time those people were called alarmists and perhaps even paranoid. Charting a trend historically and accurately is something which is a lot easier to do after decades have gone by. The people who did it accurately, real time, like for instance Winston Churchill are the real heroes. (and no I am not comparing Beck to Churchill)

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a good example of a mature exploration of the connection between progressive and authoritarian movements in the 1930's. Unlike Beck ( and apparently Posner and Zaitchik), Goldberg draws a distinction between a movement's historical roots and its current ambitions. Goldberg also does not conflate groups with loose associations into one big "fascist" or "communist" category in order to disparage their positions. I know you think that I am quibbling over

Quoting AemJeff: That's quite a leap. I'm saying that Jonah wrote a book so bad that when he compiled the available good reviews on the NRO Liberal Fascism blog, all but one of those were by people who post on the website he founded. The outlier was Tom Wolfe. (Actually going back to look, Vox Day hasn't, to my knowledge, posted on The Corner either, not that that changes much.)

Hmmmm, I would consider a good review by Tom Wolfe quite a coup. Besides who cares? read it yourself and think for yourself.

What do you think Harry? Ring true with you? This fixation on the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, while mildly amusing, is just a distraction. You don't judge a political philosophy by it's worse practitioners, but by it's best.

I've lately been thinking about the differences in timbre on the left and the right and what causes it. Even though on most issues I don't really claim to know which side is more correct, I do feel the mainstream of the right has far more just outright stupidity then the mainstream of the left does*

This makes it easy for many on the left to feel superior and become smug which results in the creation of threads like the above. Now what's particularly vexing though is this fixation on Palin. Focusing on Palin is like going to a WWF (World Wrestling Federation) show and picking a fight with a 12 year old girl in the stands.

*It seems like conservatives tend to have a higher % of people who are politically active and more prone to fulfill perceived civic duties. This has the unfortunate side effect of the right having more people involved that are bottom of the barrel people.

This is circular. You call the book bad. I ask you if the claims are false. You dodge the question by calling the book bad. How is this suppose to convince me? I have read the book. While it wasn't the greatest work of sociology, it was a well written examination of some of the darker sides of the early progressive movement. I don't understand what your objection is. You don't seem to have any factual issues with the research, and the subject certainly is interesting.

Will one of you folks who enjoys bitching about how unfairly Zaitchik and Posner treated Beck please explain to me how I'm supposed to react to the idea that the US Constitution was divinely inspired? That God anointed the founding fathers to create a divine foundation for the law of the country? I mean, this misses the whole point of democracy and reason and the Enlightenment entirely, doesn't it?

Quoting yggdrasil: This is circular. You call the book bad. I ask you if the claims are false. You dodge the question by calling the book bad. How is this suppose to convince me? I have read the book. While it wasn't the greatest work of sociology, it was a well written examination of some of the darker sides of the early progressive movement. I don't understand what your objection is. You don't seem to have any factual issues with the research, and the subject certainly is interesting.

No, it's really not circular. You're limiting the class of acceptable evidence to a single category in order support that claim. Jonah's book was largely panned. The exception to that pattern was among people who are his ideological allies, and primarily among his colleagues at NRO. That's an awfully weak endorsement. As I've said elsewhere, life is short, and tendentious polemics are extremely common. I have no need, and recognize no obligation, to read each one - even if I claim to have an opinion. That's one of the reasons book reviews exist.

I haven't read L.F. either, so I'd be interested to hear from you (yggdrasil) how accurate this example is, but it's my understanding that Goldberg depicted one of Hitler's laws as the exact opposite of what it was. Goldberg claimed that this law was an attempt at gun-grabbing because it specified restrictions on gun ownership, but the law itself made more gun ownership legal and outlawed no previously legal gun ownership. The only thing it changed was that it allowed Aryans to own assault rifles, something which was illegal in the Weimar Republic. If Goldberg did actually claim Hitler was liberal because he tried to disarm the populace, when in fact Hitler tried to make a more heavily armed populace, then that's pretty damning. That's just one example of course, but having read Goldberg's TWS writing I have no trouble believing it's representative of the rest of the book.

I have already read the book and rendered judgement on it (see above). Why should my judgement prove worse than the reviews (which mainly skewed along partisan lines) or your opinion (which doesn't seem to based on anything that actually appeared in the book)? We're trying to discuss the issue of the correct way to explore ideological backgrounds without becoming mired in paranoid conspiracy theory. I would love to hear why you think that Goldberg's book crosses the line. I am completely uninterested in whether X number of critics thought it was good or not.

Quoting yggdrasil: I have already read the book and rendered judgement on it (see above). Why should my judgement prove worse than the reviews (which mainly skewed along partisan lines) or your opinion (which doesn't seem to based on anything that actually appeared in the book)?

We're trying to discuss the issue of the correct way to explore ideological backgrounds without becoming mired in paranoid conspiracy theory. I would love to hear why you think that Goldberg's book crosses the line. I am completely uninterested in whether X number of critics thought it was good or not.

Too bad. Seriously. You've exempted yourself from the larger conversation and asserted that your own opinions are all that matter to you in your evaluation of the world outside yourself. There are far better ways to explore the relationships between ideology and conspiracy theories than a widely panned polemic by a well known hack. But, whatever floats your boat.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: What do you think Harry? Ring true with you? This fixation on the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, while mildly amusing, is just a distraction. You don't judge a political philosophy by it's worse practitioners, but by it's best.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Limbaugh and Beck are popular media animals and the fact that they are so popular poses some interesting questions. But conservative principles are more complex than what one can get from a radio show. For instance I'm reading a book by Victor Davis Hanson called The Father of Us All . Although he doesn't explicitly say he's a conservative, he does seem to subscribe to the tragic view, a conservative tenet. He pretty much says that war is an aspect of human nature and is inevitable. He is a war historian and in this book examines the current state of global affairs against the vast history of civilization and its wars. So far he hasn't been prescriptive in this book and acknowledges that our problems have many facets that haven't been experienced before such as drone attacks, etc. But he lays out

It was an example of something that I felt was saying the same thing as Beck but in a calmer more sensible way that I felt should be taken seriously. That's a perfectly legitimate argument. I don't see how the reviews of a book have any issue to the statement I just made. What book do you feel explores the issue of the early overlap between progressive and authoritarian movements in a better way? Or do you think the entire subject should just be Taboo ? I am really not interested in a referendum on whether you like Jonah Goldberg or not.

Quoting kezboard: Will one of you folks who enjoys bitching about how unfairly Zaitchik and Posner treated Beck please explain to me how I'm supposed to react to the idea that the US Constitution was divinely inspired? That God anointed the founding fathers to create a divine foundation for the law of the country? I mean, this misses the whole point of democracy and reason and the Enlightenment entirely, doesn't it?

You may react as I would. You don't believe the founding documents were divinely inspired and neither do I. But there were lots of people around during the enlightenment who believed in God and there are lots of people who still do. In fact a fairly good case could be made that religion played a big part in the notions of democracy and reason.... at least from the standpoint that those who initiated those concepts were believers.

Quoting yggdrasil:
What book do you feel explores the issue of the early overlap between progressive and authoritarian movements in a better way? Or do you think the entire subject should just be Taboo ?

I say all books should be burned except A People's History of the United States.

Quoting yggdrasil: It was an example of something that I felt was saying the same thing as Beck but in a calmer more sensible way that I felt should be taken seriously. That's a perfectly legitimate argument. I don't see how the reviews of a book have any issue to the statement I just made.

What book do you feel explores the issue of the early overlap between progressive and authoritarian movements in a better way? Or do you think the entire subject should just be Taboo ?

I am really not interested in a referendum on whether you like Jonah Goldberg or not.

Evidence is impeachable based on its source, among other things. I like Jonah, btw - I just don't think his work provides an interesting, or even a useful basis for any particular analytical claims. I'm sure you can find plenty of books on that topic - but you'd need to define which "progressives" you're interested in discussing. A better inquiry, in my opinion, would seek to draw correlations between intensity of belief and the degree to which a movement insists on purity, with authoritarian tendencies; rather than content, which is likely only to show a weak

If you don't think the subject is interesting than why are you commenting on this thread? Your just slowing down the conversation trying to bring in un-topical partisanship. Yeah, I have an axe to grind. If you remember this example was employed in an argument that Beck wasn't making a legitimate case with his op-ed style. But I don't think you are trying to imply I was being unfairly anti-Beck.

Quoting AemJeff: A better inquiry, in my opinion, would seek to draw correlations between intensity of belief and the degree to which a movement insists on purity, with authoritarian tendencies; rather than content, which is likely only to show a weak relationship.

This would indeed be an interesting inquiry if you could figure out what the hell it means!

Quoting badhatharry: This would indeed be an interesting inquiry if you could figure out what the hell it means!

People probably don't behave very differently based on the content of their beliefs. Crazy left-wingers and crazy right-wingers are similarly obnoxious. But "crazy" means what? Too much fervor? (I'd say yes.) A belief that their way is the only right way (Purity!) (Of course!) The higher a self-selected group scores on those traits, the higher the likliehood that their idea of a perfect society would be nightmare for all involved. (There are certainly other possible parameters, but those come off the top of my head.) For an extreme left-wing example, think about the Cambodian Pol Pot regime. Godwin easily points us toward the best right-wing example.

But there were lots of people around during the enlightenment who believed in God and there are lots of people who still do. In fact a fairly good case could be made that religion played a big part in the notions of democracy and reason.... at least from the standpoint that those who initiated those concepts were believers.

But that's completely beside the point. You can believe in God, believe that God is the guarantor of human rights, and so forth, without believing, as Beck seems to, that the reason the Constitution is great is because God dictated it. The idea that God anointed the founding fathers has more in common with the idea of the divine right of kings than anything the American Revolution was actually based on. I mean, it's really anti-democratic.

Glenn Beck is a paper tiger. He averages averages 2.1 million viewers. By comparison, Law and Order averages 10.7 million viewers. That was enough to get it cancelled. Where are the breathless diavlogs and books about Sam Waterston's politics? (I think they're lefty - I've seen him advertise The Nation.) If you want to talk dangerous TV, talk 24. 11 million viewers and a pro-torture message. Ugh. Then again, I'm not going to claim that people are too stupid to separate reality from entertainment... P.S. Note to BHTV powers that be: I couldn't listen to more than ten minutes of this, due to the audio problems. Perhaps they should have recorded another DV?

Nikki, Beck has 2 million TV viewers, but you need to add 1.5 million who podcast his shows, plus 9 million weekly radio listeners. I'm sure there is some overlap, but he probably reaches 10 million people - not just 2 million. My question is how many people read characters like Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, or David Frum? These people are quoted constantly, yet how many people actually read them? And another question. If MSNBC can survive with shows drawing 500,000 people, why are they giving slots to dummies like Ed Shultz or Chris Matthews. They could give you or Bob Wright a show you'd draw 500,000 - and do it better.

Quoting yggdrasil: If you don't think the subject is interesting than why are you commenting on this thread? Your just slowing down the conversation trying to bring in un-topical partisanship.

Yeah, I have an axe to grind. If you remember this example was employed in an argument that Beck wasn't making a legitimate case with his op-ed style. But I don't think you are trying to imply I was being unfairly anti-Beck.

I commented because you tried to use a dismissal of Beck as a back-door attempt to bolster Liberal Fascism. That may be a step up from from Beck's ridiculous spew, but it's still plainly hackery. And, like I said, there probably is an interesting topic here, if a slightly better question were asked.

Quoting badhatharry: [QUOTEyggdrasil
Well yes there is, but sometimes paranoia turns out to be right. For instance there were many people who thought Hitler should be appeased and he could be brought around.However there were those who saw him for the brute he turned out to be.

This is veering way off topic and out of my expertise, but one could make an argument that the UK was much better prepared to fight a war against Germany in 1939 than in 1938. One could also argue that the British populace, still haunted by the aftermath of World War I, would have been far less willing to endure drastic war measures if Britain had gone to war before first making an obviously sincere effort to preserve the peace. This isn't to say that Chamberlain did the right thing, but there are more ways of looking at Munich than as a permanent vindication of all alarmists everywhere.

This is veering way off topic and out of my expertise, but one could make an argument that the UK was much better prepared to fight a war against Germany in 1939 than in 1938. One could also argue that the British populace, still haunted by the aftermath of World War I, would have been far less willing to endure drastic war measures if Britain had gone to war before first making an obviously sincere effort to preserve the peace. This isn't to say that Chamberlain did the right thing, but there are more ways of looking at Munich than as a permanent vindication of all alarmists everywhere.

BUT THE SUDETENLAND! Kidding. You have to think of the Munich agreement in the context of post-WWI nationalist politics. Central Europe had been sliced and diced along ethnic lines without regard for history or geography many times in the years before 1939. (Not coincidentally, Czechoslovakia had been making out like a bandit until then. I don't think there was any land they wanted that they had to give up.) The Sudetenland did have a German-speaking majority. It was at least as German as

Quoting kezboard: BUT THE SUDETENLAND!

Kidding. You have to think of the Munich agreement in the context of post-WWI nationalist politics. Central Europe had been sliced and diced along ethnic lines without regard for history or geography many times in the years before 1939.
That said, if you actually read Mein Kampf, you would find out that it wasn't about Czechoslovakia and what he really wanted to do was settle Germans in Eastern Europe and create an ethnically pure Aryan state. So in that sense, of course they should have known; and they also should have known that not having the Sudetenland would be disastrous for Czechoslovakia. But not because it was this awful betrayal of their national sovereignty (it was, but national sovereignties were being betrayed right and left in Central Europe at that point) but because the Sudetenland isn't an actual region. It's just a German nationalist way to refer to the mountains that are on three sides of the (contemporary) Czech Republic. The Czechoslovak army had spent all their time fortifying defenses in these mountains, for obvious reasons, and the country just wasn't able to defend itself without them. If

Yeah great, you were worried about me plugging a book that you have never read and I have. Good for you.

Quoting yggdrasil: Yeah great, you were worried about me plugging a book that you have never read and I have. Good for you.

You might as well jump off that horse. Nobody except Jonah and you gives a shit. Most people don't need to read Danielle Steele either.

I think the ability of the Czechs to defend themselves has been overblown. Yes, they fortified the German-Czech border rather well. but they didn't fortify (to any great extent the Austrian-Czech border). Secondly, in 1938 the German Riech pretty much surrounded Bohemia. North, South, and East its only about 100 miles to Prague.

Yes, you're definitely right about the border with Austria. I'm not suggesting that they could have totally beat back the Nazis or anything; I'm just suggesting that maybe if they had fought back, ultimately the British and the French (and also the Poles and Romanians) would have backed them up, and I don't think the German army really wanted a war with any of those countries yet, so Hitler might have gone under a bus or something.

The third problems is that of the 14 million people only the Czechs wanted to fight. The 3 million German speakers didn't, and neither did the Slovaks, Hungarians, and Ukrainians.

But if Czechoslovakia had gone to war with Germany, Hungary would have most certainly have taken that opportunity to go to war with them too and try to grab Slovakia back. (The Germans got the Slovaks to secede from Czechoslovakia

Quoting kezboard: Yes, you're definitely right about the border with Austria. I'm not suggesting that they could have totally beat back the Nazis or anything; I'm just suggesting that maybe if they had fought back, ultimately the British and the French (and also the Poles and Romanians) would have backed them up, and I don't think the German army really wanted a war with any of those countries yet, so Hitler might have gone under a bus or something.

I'm a little fuzzy about the Polish and Romanian stance toward Munich. Didn't Poland grab a piece of Czechoslovakia after the settlement? And were the Romanian's anti-Hitler or are you suggesting they might have attacked Hungary (in your scenario) ?

But if Czechoslovakia had gone to war with Germany, Hungary would have most certainly have taken that opportunity to go to war with them too and try to grab Slovakia back. (The Germans got the Slovaks to secede from Czechoslovakia in 1939 by threatening to let Hungary invade. They did, but Hungary attacked anyway.) So I'm pretty sure the Slovaks would have fought, particularly if the central government had given them -- and the

Yes, it is my statement.

A bit off topic, but can you post a pronunciation of your name? I know its some kind of norse tree or something, but it still, so many consonants next to each other.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Maybe you could tell us what they get wrong -- help balance the picture.

Le silence de Monsieur RCocean est assourdissant. Itzik Basman not to be confused with Itzik Basman

Quoting badhatharry:
Glenn Beck loves Joe Klein.

Here is the video of his... scream before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rHfWg-z8Gw
The video has more effect. As you can see, this is why I don't understand reactions to Beck either praising him or hostility to him. I can't take him seriously. But he can be amusing, like this over the top performance shows. Side note, I liked the part when he was explaining himself and he complains about people being unhinged... after yelling in an octave higher than a chipmonk.

Quoting yggdrasil: Why should my judgement prove worse than the reviews (which mainly skewed along partisan lines)...

The most devastating review I read was this one in The American Conservative.
It's easy to get swept up in an author's arguments, especially if you are not an expert in the field. A critical review might well help you evaluate the book, even though you have already read it.

Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire.

Mieux vaut ne rien dire et penser un imbécile que de parler et lever tous les doutes!

Quoting AemJeff: Mieux vaut ne rien dire et penser un imbécile que de parler et lever tous les doutes!

We're all French now!

Interesting. I know there were Hungarians in Slovakia, but would Hungary have risked war in that situation? I'm not arguing against it, it just seems risky - for Hungary.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they would have. Hungary was a very angry place between the world wars.

I'm a little fuzzy about the Polish and Romanian stance toward Munich. Didn't Poland grab a piece of Czechoslovakia after the settlement? And were the Romanian's anti-Hitler or are you suggesting they might have attacked Hungary (in your scenario) ?

Czechoslovakia was allied with Romania and Yugoslavia, and they would have loved to attack Hungary. Czechoslovakia and Poland had multiple border disputes on and off until the fifties, but I think the Poles would have gotten on board in a war against Germany.

Understandable, given they were sold down the river by France and UK. I'm sure the Poles have a similar attitude.

It might be understandable, but it's maddening. For instance, when I was living in the Czech Republic, there was a huge debate about the American radar installation that was going to be put there (and has since been moved to Romania, apparently). I heard many times that this was just like

My hovercraft is full of eels!

Quoting kezboard: My hovercraft is full of eels!

Heh! (Yup.)

Quoting Ocean: We're all French now!

Sprechen für sich selbst. Als für mich, "Ich bin [ein] Berliner"!

Quoting listener: Sprechen für sich selbst, als für mich, "Ich bin [ein] Berliner"!

Sprechen Sie über Berliner?

Quoting Ocean: Sprechen Sie über Berliner?

Nein, deshalb habe ich die "ein" in Klammern gesetzt!! (Yummy, though!) [?]

Quoting listener: Nein, deshalb habe ich die "ein" in Klammern gesetzt!!

(Yummy, though!)

Oh, Feinheiten!

Quoting Ocean: Oh, Feinheiten!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin...t_urban_legend

Quoting listener: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin...t_urban_legend

Ja, ich weiß.

Quoting Ocean: Ja, ich weiß.

Sie sind zu klug, meine liebe Ocean!

Quoting AemJeff: You might as well jump off that horse. Nobody except Jonah and you gives a shit. Most people don't need to read Danielle Steele either.

I do. I have read the book but I’ll admit to not having spent much time reading the various reviews (pro or con) other than superficially, so I won’t comment too much on that aspect other than to say that I generally agree with a number of the negative reviews that I’ve skimmed that Goldberg is overly tendentious with respect to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and “liberal” (in the contemporary sense) thought in general. However, as a corrective to much current thinking, or at least misunderstanding of the historical relationship of progressivism to fascism and communism, and the corrsponding distance from historical conservative thought, I think the book is much closer to the truth than not. There is really a great deal of scholarship supporting Goldberg’s general argument and while one may legitimately criticize Goldberg for using certain correct foundations as the basis of exaggerated identifications, he is really not off the mark in outlining progressivism’s family tree (Bramwell’s dismissal of taxonomies and general critique notwithstanding). Long before Goldberg

Quoting listener: Sie sind zu klug, meine liebe Ocean!

I'm not a clog!

Quoting Ocean: I'm not a clog!

Most certianly not! But if you were, you'd be a very clever clog!

Quoting listener: Most certianly not! But if you were, you'd be a very clever clog!

Klug verstopfen?

Quoting Ocean: Klug verstopfen?

LOL! Ja, ja!

Quoting spandrel: I do. I have read the book but I’ll admit to not having spent much time reading the various reviews (pro or con) other than superficially, so I won’t comment too much on that aspect other than to say that I generally agree with a number of the negative reviews that I’ve skimmed that Goldberg is overly tendentious with respect to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and “liberal” (in the contemporary sense) thought in general. However, as a corrective to much current thinking, or at least misunderstanding of the historical relationship of progressivism to fascism and communism, and the corrsponding distance from historical conservative thought, I think the book is much closer to the truth than not. There is really a great deal of scholarship supporting Goldberg’s general argument and while one may legitimately criticize Goldberg for using certain correct foundations as the basis of exaggerated identifications, he is really not off the mark in outlining progressivism’s family tree (Bramwell’s dismissal of taxonomies and general critique notwithstanding). Long before Goldberg was born, the divergence and subsequent influences of the left and right Hegelians were well known and documented. However ridiculous it would be to

Quoting AemJeff: People probably don't behave very differently based on the content of their beliefs. Crazy left-wingers and crazy right-wingers are similarly obnoxious. But "crazy" means what? Too much fervor? (I'd say yes.) A belief that their way is the only right way (Purity!) (Of course!) The higher a self-selected group scores on those traits, the higher the likliehood that their idea of a perfect society would be nightmare for all involved. (There are certainly other possible parameters, but those come off the top of my head.) For an extreme left-wing example, think about the Cambodian Pol Pot regime. Godwin easily points us toward the best right-wing example.

I have always been curious about the terms right-wing and left-wing when used to describe tyrants. It seems that all tyrants end up severely limiting the freedom of the populace. So what makes Hitler right-wing as opposed to Pol Pot being left-wing? It seems that whenever a tyrant wants to take over they will use any means necessary, nationalism being a tool used by both. I think the events of the day and the relative freedom the population enjoys are a far more accurate way to gauge

Quoting kezboard: But that's completely beside the point. You can believe in God, believe that God is the guarantor of human rights, and so forth, without believing, as Beck seems to, that the reason the Constitution is great is because God dictated it. The idea that God anointed the founding fathers has more in common with the idea of the divine right of kings than anything the American Revolution was actually based on. I mean, it's really anti-democratic.

I agree it's silly. But the whole idea of natural rights came from the idea that God grants them. In fact, according to the enlightenment, they don't exist at all without God. Therefore I don't think it's much of a leap to ask God's help to form a constitution that will ensure those rights. Inspiration is such an ephemeral thing that I can't criticize it seriously and I don't see how it affects democracy. Also, the divine right of kings had to do with inheritance, something the founders were obviously not in to.

Quoting nikkibong: He averages averages 2.1 million viewers. By comparison, Law and Order averages 10.7 million viewers. That was enough to get it cancelled. Where are the breathless diavlogs and books about Sam Waterston's politics? (I think they're lefty - I've seen him advertise The Nation.)

Yeah, but he also peddles TD Waterhouse, the investment firm, so he could swing both ways.

Quoting Don Zeko: This is veering way off topic and out of my expertise, but one could make an argument that the UK was much better prepared to fight a war against Germany in 1939 than in 1938. One could also argue that the British populace, still haunted by the aftermath of World War I, would have been far less willing to endure drastic war measures if Britain had gone to war before first making an obviously sincere effort to preserve the peace. This isn't to say that Chamberlain did the right thing, but there are more ways of looking at Munich than as a permanent vindication of all alarmists everywhere.

No, alarmists should always be challenged but they are sometimes correct. It's probably impossible to determine at the time. Hey! look at Gore! he might end up having been right :-)

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: It's easy to get swept up in an author's arguments, especially if you are not an expert in the field. A critical review might well help you evaluate the book, even though you have already read it.

How about evaluating things on your own. Reading an expert is just reading someone else's opinion not your own.We all need to be reading more critically, gathering our own data and assimilating our view. And always being ready to change or modify, if need be.

Quoting badhatharry: How about evaluating things on your own. Reading an expert is just reading someone else's opinion not your own.We all need to be reading more critically, gathering our own data and assimilating our view.

Because there are limits on human intelligence and free time. We ask for the opinion of experts (film critics, book reviews, nuclear physicists, etc.) when we need to make informed decisions but lack the time or opportunity to become properly informed. Sure, one needs to be careful about whose opinions one trusts, but there are plenty of negative reviews of Liberal Fascism: certainly enough to keep me from wasting the time and money needed to read a 496 page polemic.

Just to make sure this dead horse isn't getting up, let me ask you a question, Badhatharry. How do you know Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons? Do you have first-hand knowledge of what they're up to, what kind of technical and logistical hurdles are involved in building an atomic bomb, or the strategic outlook of the Iranian regime? Isn't concern about the iranian nuclear program, if it even exists, a conclusion that you have been given by experts rather than arriving at yourself?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: The most devastating review I read was this one in The American Conservative.
It's easy to get swept up in an author's arguments, especially if you are not an expert in the field. A critical review might well help you evaluate the book, even though you have already read it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, but that is a very good review. This is what I've been trying to delineate for some time, about why listening to Jonah talk about philosophy doesn't satisfy me at all:

For all his striving for theoretical sophistication, Goldberg manages to come off as something of a philistine. He treats the great philosophers less as thinkers than as figurines to be arranged on a chessboard, each capable of one or two moves. Thus Herder stands for nationalism, Hegel for the divination of the State, William James for the denial of truth, John Dewey for social engineering, Nietzsche for nihilism, and so forth. (Oddly, Goldberg reserves his most curt disdain for those theorists, such as Joseph de Maistre and Carl Schmitt, who faced the truth the most fearlessly.) These names do not lend

Quoting AemJeff: That was pretty dense spandrel, and I can't do justice to some of those assertions. But, Jonah's scholarship has been roundly condemned, his theme is is tendentiously contrarian (I mean summarizing it as "am not and so are you!" seems like only a mild parody) and conflating historical progressivism (which can be described with some justice as a center right movement) with modern liberalism (which has a lot more to do with FDR and MLK than with say Teddy Roosevelt) is a real stretch - just to name three big problems at random. What you mean by "the more radical strains of current day progressivism" and how that relates meaningfully to mainstream liberalism is unclear to me.

My problem is with people who want to take credit for being descendants of a movement that led to women's suffrage without taking credit for prohibition, or credit for family planning organizations but not for the US eugenics movement, or to associate themselves with the good accomplishments of the 60s while disowning the communist sympathies. The problem is that those pairs went together, so it's ahistorical to claim descent from one half while disowning

Quoting osmium: This has absolutely nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, but that is a very good review. This is what I've been trying to delineate for some time, about why listening to Jonah talk about philosophy doesn't satisfy me at all:

Quoting osmium: [From Bramwell] For all his striving for theoretical sophistication, Goldberg manages to come off as something of a philistine. He treats the great philosophers less as thinkers than as figurines to be arranged on a chessboard, each capable of one or two moves.

You picked a particularly apposite passage from Bramwell (there are indeed quite a few chess moves going on here) and while I do think that Bramwell raises a number of interesting and valid criticisms of Goldberg’s book (his categorization of the three lines of argument is nicely summarized), overall I find his reasoning incoherent. After reading what would appear to be a devastating attack on just about every single line of argument taken by Goldberg, how is one to evaluate his sudden interjection that “with just a modicum of restraint, Goldberg could have written a very good book.”? After encountering this

My problem is the intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue. We can all agree that the founders were Christians and that they derived much of their constitutional ideas from Judeo-Christian tradition. But that has zero to do with whether any of it is correct. The only reason any of it is still around is that we, as a democracy, have agreed to it. We finally figured out that slavery was wrong and so we changed that. Ditto with women's suffrage, etc. The intellectually dishonest part is when conservatives play the "Christian Nation" card. Because they aren't saying anything contrary to what I said in the last paragraph - but they mean to. Because by "Christian Nation" they mean a specifically Christian nation, where biblical law has bearing on constitutional law. It's an appeal to theocracy. Yet they can't come right out and say this (at least publicly) because it's so obviously bullshit that they'll never get anywhere politically. So what they do is fiddle around the edges, weaseling in 10 commandments in the courthouse here, "under God" pledges there, all with the implicit intent of establishing the codification of biblical law. The real question, when

But the whole idea of natural rights came from the idea that God grants them. In fact, according to the enlightenment, they don't exist at all without God.

That's the exact opposite of the sort of humanistic philosophy that characterizes the enlightenment. We were endowed with rights by the Creator (according to Jefferson) because we have reason, because of our nature, not because it was an arbitrary decision on God's part.

Therefore I don't think it's much of a leap to ask God's help to form a constitution that will ensure those rights.

Well, it's an empirical question whether the founders did or not; it makes sense for any sort of religious person, upon doing something important, to ask for God's help. But I do think it's a serious leap to suggest, as Ezra Taft Benson did, that the founders were "not ordinary men, but chosen by God" and that "God has placed his stamp of approval on the constitution of this land". That's profoundly anti-democratic. The US government does not derive its legitimacy from God or from any kind of religion; it derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and the integrity

Sam Waterston is an independent who apparently voted for Goldwater because he hated Johnson's ad with the daisies and the nukes. And I vaguely remember Bill O'Reilly saying that Law & Order was a "far-left show" a few years ago, I think because one episode was about a crazed anti-immigrant guy who tried to kill someone. Regardless of all that, though, Law & Order is obviously a Republican show. I've watched enough episodes to know this. The defense attorney is always crafty and always getting obviously guilty people off on technicalities. The police are always getting unfairly hemmed in by laws intended to protect criminals' rights.

answering kezboard

That's the exact opposite of the sort of humanistic philosophy that characterizes the enlightenment. We were endowed with rights by the Creator (according to Jefferson) because we have reason, because of our nature, not because it was an arbitrary decision on God's part.

Hmmmm...So you are saying, according to Jefferson, Locke et al, that all creatures who have reason will also have rights. It does seem arbitrary if that is the case, because God is the granter of reason (if you are a believer) and arbitrarily gives man rights because of his arbitrary decision. I just don't see how you get God out of the picture when talking about natural rights. I personally don't think we have any rights besides those we give ourselves and agree upon in the society in which we live. there really isn't anything outside society which creates and recognizes rights. I don't think the enlightenment thinkers went this far and were casting around for a replacement for the divine right of kings. As far as whether the founders were religious, some were but I agree that they were not chosen by God. However, I find no harm that

Quoting Don Zeko: Just to make sure this dead horse isn't getting up, let me ask you a question, Badhatharry. How do you know Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons? Do you have first-hand knowledge of what they're up to, what kind of technical and logistical hurdles are involved in building an atomic bomb, or the strategic outlook of the Iranian regime? Isn't concern about the iranian nuclear program, if it even exists, a conclusion that you have been given by experts rather than arriving at yourself?

Are you calling me a dead horse?? Yes, we listen to all sorts of information (according to our president so much that it is confusing). As for Iran, the opinions are all over the place and I listen to pretty much all of them. Some think sanctions will work, while others don't. And truth be told, no one has the correct answer as to what will work to neutralize the threat from Iran. I was recently reading a book which suggested that when the Ayatollah took over the embassy, if Jimmy Carter had threatened to bomb Iran out of existence, we wouldn't be faced with the mess we currently have

Quoting osmium: This has absolutely nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, but that is a very good review. This is what I've been trying to delineate for some time, about why listening to Jonah talk about philosophy doesn't satisfy me at all:

So I finally looked at the review and it is certainly well written. I have not read Jonah's book so I don't know how accurate it is, but Bramwell certainly seems to know what he's talking about. But, in order to really make a decision about Jonah's book, you'd simply have to read it. I did some research and FYI, Bramwell is pretty disenchanted with conservatives. It's always good to consider the source. PS I read on some blog that since the review was published in the American Conservative and Jonah is Jewish that may be the reason for the dislike. The thick plottens!!! Whatever its past accomplishments, the conservative movement no longer kindles any “ironic points of light.” It has produced fewer outstanding books even as it has taken over more of the intellectual and political landscape. This trend will only continue. Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain

I'm not talking about how best to deal with Iran's nuclear program; I was talking about that program's existence. One can't really know anything about something that complex being done in a foreign country without reference to experts.

Quoting Don Zeko: I'm not talking about how best to deal with Iran's nuclear program; I was talking about that program's existence. One can't really know anything about something that complex being done in a foreign country without reference to experts.

OK, I missed that distinction I guess because we were talking about someone's opinion about the content Goldberg's book. But now I realize, since I've never actually seen the book, there may be some question as to whether it actually exists! I guess I'll just have to rely on the experts. And then there's this little bit....how about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons? Lot's of experts swore they existed and lots of people relied on that assertion. So what do we say about experts?

Quoting badhatharry: So I finally looked at the review and it is certainly well written. I have not read Jonah's book so I don't know how accurate it is, but Bramwell certainly seems to know what he's talking about.

But, in order to really make a decision about Jonah's book, you'd simply have to read it. I did some research and FYI, Bramwell is pretty disenchanted with conservatives. It's always good to consider the source.

Yes, of course you're right. I haven't read Liberal Fascism, so I don't really know if it's a good review *of the book.* Rather, parts of the review--and especially that part--were clear statements of my opinion of how Jonah comes across on BhTV.

Quoting spandrel: After reading what would appear to be a devastating attack on just about every single line of argument taken by Goldberg, how is one to evaluate his sudden interjection that “with just a modicum of restraint, Goldberg could have written a very good book.”? After encountering this sentence I re-read the article two times and cannot imagine how one could simultaneously accept Bramwell’s critique and justify this statement.

I see what you're saying, but I didn't think that. He just means the thesis overreached, which I admit would mean the entire book would have to be re-written. I don't think I understand the difference between conservatism and movement conservatism. I never know what that means when people say that.

Quoting osmium: Yes, of course you're right. I haven't read Liberal Fascism, so I don't really know if it's a good review *of the book.* Rather, parts of the review--and especially that part--were clear statements of my opinion of how Jonah comes across on BhTV.

It's always interesting to see something you've been trying to put your finger on spelled out by someone else.

Quoting osmium:
Quoting spandrel:

After reading what would appear to be a devastating attack on just about every single line of argument taken by Goldberg, how is one to evaluate his sudden interjection that “with just a modicum of restraint, Goldberg could have written a very good book.”? After encountering this sentence I re-read the article two times and cannot imagine how one could simultaneously accept Bramwell’s critique and justify this statement.

I see what you're saying, but I didn't think that. He just means the thesis overreached, which I admit would mean the entire book would have to be re-written.

I don't think I understand the difference between conservatism and movement conservatism. I never know what that means when people say that.

I read that sentence, too and found it strange at the time, but never re-read the article as spandrel did. This is the good kind of critical thinking everyone should engage in. As far as 'overreaching', I think Bramwell was far more harsh than that. He skewered the guy. And as for movement conservatism...maybe that's the populist, soundbite stuff as in Palin and Beck. Or maybe it's this.

Let me back up a bit. i was responding to a point upthread that criticized myself, AEMjeff, etc. (Liberal Fascism haters) for hating on the book without having read it. Doing so requires relying on the judgment of other people that have read the book, who could just be reflecting their biases rather than giving a fair account of the book's merits. I responded by saying that reliance on such experts is necessary all the time, as nobody can become an expert in everything that he or she must pass judgment upon. So with regard to your point about WMD, you're right. The experts we rely upon can, and often are, wrong. But this isn't a reason not to rely upon expert opinion, it's a reason to be as careful as possible about the experts we rely upon, and always be on guard for signs that they might be mistaken (or worse yet, intentionally misleading us). With this in mind, I suppose I should reformulate my criticism of Liberal Fascism as follows: A number of reviewers whose intellectual integrity I respect, not all of whom are Liberals, have been extremely critical of Jonah's book. The reviewers who have had

Quoting yggdrasil: There's a difference between documenting a trend historically and playing the paranoid card. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a good example of a mature exploration of the connection between progressive and authoritarian movements in the 1930's.

Quoting yggdrasil: It was an example of something that I felt was saying the same thing as Beck but in a calmer more sensible way that I felt should be taken seriously.

Noted for the record.

Quoting badhatharry: Absolutely right. Free speech is only for liberals.

Quoting badhatharry: ... gee whiz! there's all that free speech stuff to consider.

It never fails to amaze me that wingnuts equate mild criticism of their most extreme sad clowns with "OMG CENSORSHIP!!!1!"

Quoting badhatharry: I say all books should be burned ...

Noted for the record.

Quoting pampl: My problem is with people who want to take credit for being descendants of a movement that led to women's suffrage without taking credit for prohibition, ... [etc., tediously --bjk]

My problem -- and I'm sure I'm far from alone in this -- is that you can't see the difference between people of today trying to ally themselves with good ideas that were once "radical" and are now so mainstream as to be non-negotiable, and the weak sauce tactic (promoted by the Pantload and his acolytes) that it is "legitimate" to throw every last thing into the pot when all you want to do is diminish some well-nigh meaningless word like "progressivism" or "liberalism." Argue about whether women getting the vote was a good idea or not. Or whatever the issue is. Don't waste time saying "X was a 'progressive' idea, and so was Y, a hundred years ago, and also, Mussolini liked 'Y' (and Hitler did, too!!!1!), so therefore progressives and X are teh suxxxx!!!1!" Otherwise you sound like ygg and badhat and old furry and other tribalistic boneheads that pollute this site.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: The most devastating review I read was this one in The American Conservative.

I'd never seen that one before. Thanks, BN. That's a good one.

It's easy to get swept up in an author's arguments, especially if you are not an expert in the field. A critical review might well help you evaluate the book, even though you have already read it.

Good point. Now that you have said it, I realize how often it has applied, in my life.

Quoting eeeeeeeli: My problem is the intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue. We can all agree that the founders were Christians ...

No, we can't all agree on this. Many, if not most, of them, in fact, were Deists. To the extent that they invoked "the Creator," etc., it was more for rhetorical effect, given the time and place that they were in, than anything else.