Jonah Goldberg: The Toughest Whore in Opposite Town
The great flaw in the liberal tradition is the obligation to respect other people's arguments, even when that other person is a nitwit.
It's the downside of the dialectic. We're expected to engage with everyone, whether or not their facts are wrong, their ideas are immoral or they're obviously just using the vocabulary of politics to express problems at home. Result: Laura Ingraham.
And, you know, Plato's Republic.
Point, counterpoint. It's an intellectual duty, like cleaning up after your dog. That's why, starting next week, we're expected to get our pants in a bunch about Doubleday's proud new contribution to the discourse: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Or, A German-Owned Publisher Calls a Rabbi a Nazi and That's Just the Title.
(Doubleday is Bertelsmann. The phrase "politics of meaning" was coined by Tikkun founder Michael Lerner. Creepy? Sure. But it's all just for fun.)
The author is our old friend Jonah Goldberg, whose other intellectual achievements include being the fat guy who knows every episode of The Simpsons by heart, and rising to the dizzying heights of the KCIA's National Review from his humble origins, being born in a whorehouse.
And that's not really fair. The Korean CIA doesn't technically run the National Review.
It's more of an imprint. Like Doubleday and Bertelsmann.
Where was I?
Jonah Goldberg, the lovable contrarian gadfly, is looking to push your buttons, and from the available excerpts and the reviews so far, it seems he'll be doing it by sticking it to Woodrow Wilson, who's been getting a free ride for far too long.
You're next, William H. Seward.
Woodrow Wilson? We're supposed to get steamed that someone is talking smack about Woodrow Wilson? It's like blaspheming against Phar Lap.
You think Jonah Goldberg must be joking, but that can't be it, because he's not quoting The Simpsons, and he doesn't have dip on his hands. And you're not thinking: I hate this party, I want to go home.
How did Goldberg get stuck with the unenviable task of trying to be irreverent about Woodrow Wilson? Because the Kennedys and FDR are played out. Christopher Hitchens has already done Mother Teresa and Ann Coulter cashed in on re-evaluating the last polarizing historical figure a few living people could actually pick out of a police line-up, Joseph McCarthy.
(One advantage Goldberg has over Coulter? His tits are real.)
So it was Woodrow Wilson or nothing. Hillary had better get elected soon, or conservatives will have nothing to hate but themselves.
But there's more to "liberal fascism" than just the iron heel of the League of Nations. Goldberg's secret history also proves that everyone who wasn't a fascist really was a fascist, pacifism is violence, secularism is religious oppression, social security is Stalinism, compassion is censorship, black is white, anarchy is totalitarianism, slavery is freedom and the only right more precious than racism is mining.
It's that book again.
It's not an argument, exactly, but it will make your teachers dread having to teach you, and attention is good.
The whole point of a book like Liberal Fascism -- besides degrading publishing so TV doesn't look so bad - is to make liberals mad. Cornel West says, "You have got to engage," but sometimes you don't. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away.
Forget it, Jake. It's Opposite Town.
--
Wait, something about the book's cover just jumped out at me.
Ooooooo! See, he's subverting the Happy Face! (Take that, 1963!) My blood is boiling so hot I could tie-dye a shirt in it. But it isn't even an original twist. Remember the white supremacist sister act, Prussian Blue? Here they are four years ago:
Not liberal fascism. Just plain old fascism.
Jonah Goldberg is so tragically lame, to sell a book he'd steal a logo from a racist child.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Since conservatives seek to regain the past, they never proffer an original thought. Being original is like being L******. Those damn lefties can be original but the righties can't afford to be seen without a briefcase full of shopworn ideas dusted off and ready to be shown to the world as the latest in brilliant notions.
According to a review of his book on amazon he is also a partial holocaust denier, in that he denies the mass killing of homosexuals took place.
The sad fact is that if Jonah Goldberg had been born during America’s Revolutionary war he would have been a Tory; a loyalist to the English Crown.
Most likely, given his frail and unmanly nature, he would not have fought against the True Sons of Liberty, but instead would have scribed fawning articles for the English King against those who favored and fought to be free.
Is his present role, Goldberg demands total and uncritical loyalty to the Bush Creed that only He is above the Law.
My use of liberal comes from the Latin liber (free). It is widely associated with the word "liberty, “the concept of freedom and favors the limitation of government power.
After reading a Goldberg column I felt the urge to take a shower. His book should cause water bills to rise. Someone decimated the book in last weeks NYT Book review section/ After Kristol I'm sure they were feeling guilty so they spanked it. One has to ask the question of why waste the space. Put it in the same dung heap as John Gibson and the other illiterate right wing idiotcracy. He and his mother are two of the vilest of sick puppies.
"Or, A German-Owned Publisher Calls a Rabbi a Nazi and That's Just the Title."
That says it all. Great post Chris.
Mr. Kelly - every time I read one of your posts I laugh so hard I tear up. The money quote of this one:
"Jonah Goldberg is so tragically lame, to sell a book he'd steal a logo from a racist child."
And I agree with you whole-heartedly; dorks with faux superiority complexes like Goldberg are best ignored. Coulter's last book tanked because liberals finally got wise and ignored her contrived existence.
These leeches only get the attention and cash they crave when liberals make a big deal their convoluted poorly constructed drivel.
And fer Christ's sake....an
The whole problem with the right is that their primary motivation is greed.
Even when it comes down to psuedo-intellectual rantings supported by logic that is so twisted it would make Rube Goldberg insane with jealousy, they just can't help trying to corner the market.
Consider the source. Jonah is the son of Lucianne Goldberg who was the agent of Linda Tripp who betrayed Monica Lewinsky. 'nuff said.
WAIT FOR IT...IT'S BUILDING MOMENTUM..
After nearly 30 yrs of Mind control (and basic oppression) by the Fundemnetalists and corporate profiteers who backed the deranged sociological landscape we are finally digging our selves out
People are getting sick of being told what to think and what (who) is good for them. Keep pushing Boys- you got almost as many new recruits for US liberals as you have for AQ.
Lots of cogent observations here, but -- as always -- I find myself drawn to that tantalizing question that hovers over all our favorite youngish, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed reactionary bile donors... what in the fuck was DONE to these people as small children?
Do they all exhibit the same cringing behavior and averting of the eyes whenever confronted by a locked closet or a hot radiator?
I was just watching David Brooks opine on why Barrack Obama is good for the Democratic Party and good for America. It seems there is a love affair between conservative Anglos and the prospect of an Obama candidacy. Brooks and his ilk want a "new paradigm" for liberalism in this country. According to Brooks, baby boomers are responsible for creating the "divisiveness" we have in politics today. An Obama candidacy will "leave all that behind" and give us a "clean start." Yes, David, as everyone knows, the environmental causes, the social justice causes, the economic justice causes, the racial equality causes, the anti-war activism that baby boomers fought for in the 1960s and 1970s were little more than self-indulgent creations they made to amuse themselves, and "annoyances" to people like yourself. Now, you are salivating over the prospect that all of these issues will just "disappear" as long we elect a "safe" non-Anglo candidate to the office of the presidency, one who speaks the language of capitulating to corporate interests rather than fighting back the enormous wealth shift that has occurred since the Reagan years. You also seem gleeful over the fact that Gen Y’ers and Gen Z’ers have little knowledge of or interest in these battles, and thus can “ignore” them like yourself. In addition, you ignore the glaring truth that the social and political paradigm in this country, like the economic paradigm, already has a far right tilt, assuming that we are working with some Locke-ian "blank slate" at the current time, assuming that everything else that irritates you about “boomer liberals” will just “go away” if Obama wins the nomination. Gosh, it's depressing to realize that I, someone in the lower middle class, an engaged Gen X’er, has another group of “right-ist” "left light" candidates to choose from, Democrats who are more right than left, who prefer compromising with “soft fascism,” and another group of conservatives like David Brooks complaining that the current "left" are a bunch of old cranks too far left for America's liking anyway. What a joke.
I was just watching David Brooks opine on why Barrack Obama is good for the Democratic Party and good for America. After watching all the MSM talking heads today, it seems there is a love affair between conservative Anglos and the prospect of an Obama candidacy. Brooks and his ilk want a "new paradigm" for liberalism in this country. According to Brooks, baby boomers are responsible for creating the "divisiveness" we have in politics today. An Obama candidacy will "leave all that behind" and give us a "clean start." Yes, David, everyone knows that the environmental causes, the social causes, the economic justice causes, the racial equality causes that boomers fought for in the 1960s and 1970s were little more than self-creations they made to amuse themselves, and "annoyances" to people like yourself. Now, you are salivating over the prospect that all of these issues will just "disappear" as long we elect a "safe" non-Anglo candidate to the office of the presidency, one who speaks the language of capitulating to corporate interests rather than fighting back the enormous wealth shift that has occurred since the Reagan years. In addition, you ignore the glaring truth that the social and political paradigm in this country already has a far right tilt, assuming that we are working with some Locke-ian "blank slate" at the current time. Gosh, it's depressing to realize that I, someone in the lower middle class, has another group of "left"-oriented candidates to choose from who are more right than left in their philosophies, and people like David Brooks to complain that the current "left" are a bunch of old cranks too far left for America's liking anyway. What a joke.
>> It's an intellectual duty, like cleaning up after your dog.
I am alergic to dogs, which is why I don't read Jonah Goldberg.
Jeez... I didn't realize Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were actually Prussian Blue!
>> One advantage Goldberg has over Coulter? His tits are real.
If I had to choose between snuggling next to JG's tits and AC's, I would choose waterboarding.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
