69 million page views

On History And The Disregard Thereof

Reader comment on item: Fascism's Legacy: Liberalism

Submitted by A.Z. Foreman (Egypt), Aug 3, 2012 at 15:23

"conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone. Goldberg's triumph is to establish the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution."

One might wonder whether it makes sense to eject modern conservatism from that trifecta of "Communism, Fascism and Liberalism", seeing as conservatism too, with its vaunted "appeal to liberty" and such is just as much the ideological heir of those French revolutionaries who dared challenge a despotic government (and subsequently became far worse than they beheld.) Or was the "liberty" in the (admittedly vacuous) "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" just a fluke?

It likewise seems that you are conflating conservatism and (an idealization of) libertarianism in this review here. Conservatism takes many guises, a fact which goes without saying as you know. The notion of "leaving citizens alone" is hardly a bedrock principle for many American articulations of conservatism, including that of the GOP. "Leaving citizens alone" is simply not a serious characteristic of any of the morally narrow and essentially anti-pluralistic ideologies which form the backbone of what, in American discourse, is labled "Social Conservatism."

Social Conservatives may say that they want small government. But it would seem that really they only want to make it just small enough to fit into e.g. gay people's bedrooms. It was not conservatism that got anti-sodomy laws overturned, or integrated public schools in America. In fact, -especially in the case of the latter- I would argue that it was not any kind of conservatism as you would conceive of it. A powerful central government did federalize the national guard, and did forcibly impose a national ideology on the white parents whose kids attended Little Rock High School. Strom Thurmond was in point of fact standing up for a kind of liberty when he railed about how no form of bayonet or gun could compel white americans to tolerate the mixing of black and white children in pools and schools against their will. Yet how many sane people see American school integration as a historical violation of parents' Right to be Racist? This is because it was a kind of liberty that is today seen as reprehensible. Yes. If we're going to play mix-and-match with political lables here, then why not "reprehensible freedom"? Was not the civil rights movement a struggle against a "reprehensible freedom" enjoyed by whites?

The fact that, for all intents and purposes, reprehensible liberties can and do exist suggests that the entire discussion is being framed in a somewhat specious, and probably unproductive, manner. When discussing liberty and the question of who is for it and who is against it, one must also ask the questions: "whose liberty, at whose expense if any, and why? All ideologies value certain types of liberty over certain others.

Also, it's worth asking why such a term as "reprehensible liberty" sounds so grotesque/scary today to Americans. Perhaps because we Americans don't like calling something a "freedom" or a "liberty" if we don't like it, or if its existence depends upon someone else being denied their liberty. Nor do we like to think that denying people liberty is a good thing. Which is why anti-sodomy laws could only be popularly sustained in the south by framing homosexual intercourse as never having been a real liberty at all in the first place. But this is a mere matter of framing and definition, of course. Yet it seems that framing and definition are the tactic you're taking. In the above respect, for example, our notion of "Liberty/Freedom" as unambiguously positive stands in contrast to Arabic حرية, which can be either negative or positive depending on context e.g. الحرية الجنسية is disparaging, whereas "Sexual Freedom" is not. (In a similar way, Hebrew הסברה is neutral-to-positive yet English "Propaganda" is very much not) My point in this rigamarole, along with its detour into the semitic and the semantic, is that this and other of the very terms you use, no less than the connotations they are larded with, are -like most instances of the term "fascism" in modern English- do not merely signify objective, trans-cultural, trans-historical, concrete criteria. The claim that a given individual or entity is "for Liberty" by itself may make for sensible political rhetoric in today's America, but even cursory examination will reveal such an idea to be a meaninglessly self-contradictory concept. Claiming to be "in favor of liberty" today is even more vacuous than claiming to be "in favor of good things."

Moving on.

The fact of the matter is that, in the modern US at least, neither social conservatism nor even the more cuddly and libertarian version you seem to be parading here are in fact motivated by a great esteem of individualism, individual liberty or open debate. In fact in much conservative rhetoric, things we could call individualism (though never by that name) are denounced as a liberal decadence (e.g. when it comes to sex, patriotism etc.)

Social and other types of conservatism are both in fact motivated, at the popular level, by alternating valorizations of "The Good Old Days" on the one hand, and of the status quo on the other. When a given liberty is being bestowed which challenges the latter, and makes the former seem all the more appealing, then American conservatives as a group most certainly do not embrace the establishment of that new liberty. Conservatives today are not especially known for their support of gay marriage, for example.

A further thought:

How many modern GOP politicians today would ever invoke the 15th Amendment -and Black Suffrage- as a proud moment in their party's history? (For it was Republicans who stood with Blacks and against Democrats in that case.) Compare that with the pride modern democrats may often voice over Truman's support of Civil Rights.

Of course the very nature of the Republican and Democratic parties has changed hugely in the country's history. Still, this difference in the way the two parties' modern members often relate to rougly similar moments in their parties' respective histories is, I think, quite telling.

I put it to you that at this point the very definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" you're operating with lose all relevance and analytic purchase. This is, of course, assuming that either of these terms ever had any such value or coherence to begin with.

-AZF

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (68) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1On History And The Disregard Thereof [1072 words]A.Z. ForemanAug 3, 2012 15:23197651
Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is deceptive propaganda [336 words]Carl StollAug 18, 2010 19:22176931
A few questions [117 words]Stefan PatejakApr 9, 2008 13:28125191
Modern Liberalism's Fascist Roots [336 words]orange yonasonJun 11, 2008 13:37125191
silliness [183 words]mattJan 24, 2008 14:48118898
matt I was hoping you wouldn't generalize [145 words]SilicondocJan 29, 2008 17:29118898
Buy the book, for the economy's sake! [265 words]mattJan 29, 2008 19:40118898
Hmmm, more of the same [1038 words]SilicondocFeb 5, 2008 08:38118898
This book is amazing [140 words]Henrik R ClausenJan 20, 2008 12:10118628
Recent events have shown [39 words]Rocky LoreJan 20, 2008 02:37118613
Karl Rovism with a New Name [44 words]Barry ListJan 17, 2008 11:19118383
Quote [32 words]ClarkJan 15, 2008 18:21118280
1Semantics and Rhetoric [145 words]Peter HerzJan 15, 2008 17:58118275
1Long a thinking man's suspicion is finally in a book form [92 words]Fiona GradyJan 12, 2008 13:13118040
Yes indeed [24 words]ClarkJan 15, 2008 18:10118040
Hitler and Mussolini were not socialists [60 words]PseudoerasmusJan 12, 2008 11:37118037
The principle of subsidiarity [344 words]Tomas KiersteinJan 14, 2008 14:32118037
Well said [54 words]ClarkJan 15, 2008 18:15118037
Comment on Tomas Kierstein [654 words]PseudoerasmusJan 17, 2008 20:36118037
Economics vs. political [38 words]DeadbambiMar 15, 2008 22:23118037
Hitler and Mussolini WERE socialists [112 words]LeeFeb 26, 2009 18:27118037
state ownership [23 words]Pat MurphyNov 13, 2010 21:33118037
stop making things up [19 words]ekarlekeMar 21, 2013 14:24118037
1From Liberal Authoritarianism to Islamo Fascism [590 words]Ann FarmerJan 11, 2008 17:55118005
The Flying Inn [152 words]Tomas Kierstein (Denmark)Jan 11, 2008 19:36118005
The Fascism of Liberalism [682 words]Ann FarmerJan 13, 2008 15:23118005
1Jonah Goldberg: Bolshevik Conservative [127 words]Elilhu DavisonJan 11, 2008 07:32117981
Solid studies on Leftism and Liberalism [194 words]George KeselmanJan 12, 2008 12:29117981
Dutch translation [950 words]FerdyJan 11, 2008 06:49117980
Marx Brothers [667 words]Tomas Kierstein (Denmark)Jan 11, 2008 05:00117978
For some people it was evident long ago [7 words]R.B., IsraelJan 11, 2008 04:00117975
One of the most Important Articles Ever at danielpipes.org [4 words]YnnatchkahJan 11, 2008 00:56117970
linkage [8 words]Consul-At-ArmsJan 11, 2008 00:05117967
An interesting review by a bright young man, whose career I have followed since he was studying in Prague. [315 words]Jascha KesslerJan 10, 2008 23:43117966
Mussolini, McCarthy and Bush. Born out of fear. [484 words]trans-parereJan 10, 2008 22:34117962
Liberal/Conservative ??? [277 words]T. JeffersJan 10, 2008 18:15117942
The origin of the "conservative" label [207 words]RobertJan 11, 2008 13:30117942
Black is Still the Preferred Color of Fascism-Who is Wearing Black in the Middle East Now? [467 words]M. ToveyJan 10, 2008 17:47117940
The bright man's burden [63 words]Pat HenryJan 10, 2008 17:26117938
Limited Government [75 words]Anthony CooperJan 10, 2008 16:04117926
Fascism's Legacy: Liberatlism [213 words]kim segarJan 10, 2008 15:40117923
Fascism and liberalism [703 words]Donald W. BalesJan 10, 2008 15:19117922
Thank you Mr. Bales, I find that number SMALL. [244 words]SilicondocFeb 5, 2008 09:03117922
Deaths [45 words]Donald W. BalesFeb 6, 2008 09:22117922
Socialism [59 words]Donald W. BalesFeb 6, 2008 19:48117922
Ok, then I've overestimated the percentage [103 words]SilicondocFeb 7, 2008 05:18117922
Liberalism and Fascism [43 words]Prof. Irving HexhamJan 10, 2008 13:10117914
We agree -- it's a worn out term [180 words]Eben SpinozaJan 10, 2008 12:51117912
The lesson of Hannukah [71 words]David W. LincolnJan 10, 2008 11:50117907
Liberal fascists versus conservatives [196 words]Michael P BiberJan 10, 2008 11:12117903
CAMPUS WATCH DEFINITION OF MCCARTHYISM [431 words]Mary ConnellyJan 10, 2008 11:00117902
Distorting Reality [414 words]Steve RalstonJan 10, 2008 10:58117901
Let freedom ring [338 words]Rebecca MouldsJan 10, 2008 10:24117895
wrong paper [188 words]cvtJan 10, 2008 09:39117894
Liberal Fascists [227 words]Dennis MiddlebroksJan 10, 2008 09:17117893
Communists & fascists:The Totalitarian Tag-Team [230 words]Alan HootnickJan 10, 2008 09:06117891
Comment on Daniel Pipes article "Fascism's Legacy: Liberalism" [185 words]J.S.Jan 10, 2008 09:00117890
Oppressive government by any name remains oppressive government. [423 words]reevesJan 10, 2008 08:14117889
to reader Reeves [124 words]Fred HerreroAug 30, 2008 18:46117889
At Last A Dose Of Reality [226 words]Seamus MacNemiJan 10, 2008 07:24117888
Hillary Clinton [76 words]LeonardJan 10, 2008 07:22117887
My golly, what is hillarycare and 5k per baby ? [437 words]SilicondocFeb 5, 2008 09:22117887
The Liberal-Fascist Connection [164 words]Prof. Paul EidelbergJan 10, 2008 05:49117885
Your article 5355: Fascism's Legacy: Liberalism [46 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Gabriel NewhouseJan 10, 2008 03:26117875
Liberals hate seeing themselves as they are, totalitarian fascists [257 words]Ken BesigJan 10, 2008 02:16117871
What's a fascist really? [163 words]RebalynnAug 24, 2010 18:18117871
Types of fascism [101 words]Janusz KowalikJan 10, 2008 01:46117869
Liberal Fascism [62 words]Rev. Gary CollierJan 10, 2008 01:36117868

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)