Monday, February 8, 2010

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg (born March 21, 1969) is a popular conservative author and journalist. The founding editor of National Review Online: He serves as the editor of National Review Online and writes a thrice-weekly column "The Goldberg File". Jonah Goldberg was formerly a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC., his writing has appeared in The New Yorker, Worth, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, The Wilson Quarterly, The Weekly Standard, the New York Post, Reason, The Women's Quarterly, The New Criterion, Food and Wine, The, and Slate.[1] He  is a Pulitzer-nominated columnist for The Los Angeles Times. His column is carried by the Chicago Tribune, New York Post, Dallas Morning News and scores of other papers.  He is a member of the Board of Contributors to USA Today and previously served as a columnist for the Times of London, Brill’s Content and the American Enterprise. His writings have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, Commentary, and numerous other publications.


He is the author of Liberal Fascism (his first book), a #1 New York Times and Amazon bestseller and was selected as the #1 history book of 2008 by Amazon readers. He is currently a Fox News Contributor.  He lives in Washington DC with his wife, Jessica Gavora, daughter, dog (Cosmo), cat (Gracie), fish (Buster) and snail (Gary). 

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a bestselling book on the origins and nature of fascist movements by Jonah Goldberg, a conservative syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online. The book, published in January 2008, reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.[1] The book has been controversial and has been both criticized, by the authors such as David Neiwart, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, and Chip Berlet.[2] and praised, by Michael Ledeen and Ron Radosh [3] [4]

Origin of title and cover

The phrase Liberal Fascism originated from a 1932 speech by science fiction pioneer and Fabian Socialist[9]H.G. Wells at Oxford.[10][11] Goldberg quotes Wells as stating that he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism." In the book, Goldberg writes that he "did not get the title of this book from Wells’s speech, but [...] was delighted to discover the phrase has such a rich intellectual history".[12] Before being published, alternative subtitles included The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton and The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods.[13]
The smiley face with an Adolf Hitler-style mustache on the cover of the book is a reference to comments made by comedian George Carlin on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher that "when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."[14][15]

Summary of contents

In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He states that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".[5]
Goldberg writes that there was more to fascism than bigotry and genocide, and agues that bigotry and genocide were not so much a feature of Italian fascism, but rather of German Nazism, which was forced upon the Italian fascists "after the Nazis had invaded northern Italy and created a puppet government in Salò."[6]
He argues that over time, the term fascism has lost its original meaning and has descended to the level of being "a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic", noting that in 1946 George Orwell (a democratic socialist) described the word as no longer having any meaning except to signify "something not desirable".[7][7][8]

EXCERPTS from Liberal Fascism

-The Definition of FASCISM-

“Fascism is a religion of the state, it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of the thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as the enemy." 
"Contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.”

Chapter 5 The 1960s: Fascism Takes to the Streets 
Pages 163, 164, and 165

          The self-styled revolutionaries had grown increasingly brazen in their campaign to force concessions from the university. Students and professors who were labeled race traders received death threats. Enemies of the racial nation were savagely beaten by roaming thugs. Guns were brought onto the campus, and the students dressed up in military uniforms. Professors were held hostage, badgered, intimidated, and threatened whenever they were teaching contradicted racial orthodoxy. But, the university administration, out of a mixture of  cowardice and sympathy for the rebels, refused to punish the revolutionaries, even when the President was man-handled by a fascist goon in front of an audience made up of the campus community.

          The radicals and their student sympathizers believed themselves to be revolutionaries of the left—the opposite of fascists in their minds—yet when one of their professors read them the speeches of Benito Mussolini, the students reacted with enthusiasm. Events came to a climax when students took over the student union and the local radio station. Armed with rifles and shotguns, they demanded an ethnically pure educational institution staffed and run by members of their own race. At first the faculty and administration were understandably reluctant; but when it was suggested that those who opposed their agenda might be killed, those of the “Moderates” quickly reversed course and supported the militants. In a mass rally reminiscent of Nuremberg, the professors recanted their reactionary ways and swore fidelity to the new revolutionary order. On professor later recalled how easily “Pompous teachers who Catechized about academic freedom, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.”

          Eventually, the fascist thugs got everything they wanted. The Authorities caved in to their demands. The few who remained opposed quietly left the university and, in some cases, the country, once it was clear that their safety could not be guaranteed

          The University of Berlin in 1932? Milan in 1922? Good guesses but this all happened at Cornell in the spring of 1969. Paramilitary Black Nationalists under the banner of the Afro-American Society seized control of the university after waging an increasingly aggressive campaign of intimidation and violence.

         The public excuse for the armed seizure of the Cornell Student Union was a cross burning outside a black dorm. This was later revealed to be a hoax orchestrated by the black radicals themselves in order to provide a pretext for their violence—and to overshadow the administration’s faint hearted and toothless “Reprimands” of six black radicals who’d broken campus rules and state laws. This Reichstag-fire style tactic worked perfectly, as the gun-toting fascist squadristi stormed Straight Hall in the predawn hours, rousting bleary-eyed parents who were staying there for Parent’s Weekend. These bewildered souls who had the misfortune to bank role the educations of the very gun-toting scholarship students now calling them “pigs” were forced to jump from a 3-foot-high cargo deck into the freezing Ithaca rain. “This is Nazism in its worst form,” declared a mother with breathless, if understandable, exaggeration. The university president James A Perkins, was required to cancel his morning convocation address sublimely titled “The Stability of the University.”

Chapter 6, Page 221

In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state.. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing the Prussian vision of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty, and liberation from old dogmas and old faiths. For progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want, freedom to be a “Constructive” citizen, the Rousseauian and Hegelian freedom of living in accord with the state and the general will.  Classical liberals were routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals


Comments On "Liberal Fascism" by Asderathos

Hitler's Was a Socialist Movement; A National Socialist Movement, occuring after Mussolini, which took over Itally.

There was Black Nationalist Movement in the 60s which was socialist. I'm sure there are other examples More details are in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

Every socialist wishes to define his own brand of socialism as "The REAL Socialism" but going by the broadest & most accepted definition of socialism, it is the partial ownership or control of the means of production by the workers, or rather supposedly on their behalf, vested in govt (as is the only form to occur) Thus national Socialism -IE- Fascism is a subset of that Socialism. Some would define socialism as communism but that leaves one without distinction, & ignorant of Marx's perspective.

YouTubeSocialist:  Nationalism is an ENORMOUS factor. Any socialist that accepts nationalism is not a socialist. Also on nationalization, Mussolini didn't have a planned economy, and 1/4 of Italian industry was still privatized.

You define socialism in YOUR way and then use that superfluity to discount other Socialisms, Illogical!

the argument goes-

A: All Monkeys have tails

B: (what about tailless Monkeys)

A: they're not monkeys,

B: (But the Genetics! The Language! The DEFINITION of "Monkey"!?)


Forget the acceptions that prove the rule.

Yes Fascism is not a popularly well defined term; however Goldberg supplies his definition, which best describes the ideology which ORIGINATED THE TERM (Fascio) while recognizing & pointing Out that Rival Leftist Ideologies called all opponents "Fascists" thus the popularization of it as a synonym for "Evil".

and if we were to be more Linguistically accurate the 60s Black Nationalists (while still Fascists) Should be recognized for their greater Nazi-esque ideology of Racial Supremacy.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly


In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny. (Jan. 8)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Michael Mann
National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny "fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not "evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve the problems of modern society.
Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist party programs contained active social welfare policies to be implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?
The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.
What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of the time were proud, "principled" -- as they saw it -- violence and authoritarianism. Fascists took their model of governance from their experience as soldiers and officers in World War I. They believed that disciplined violence, military comradeship and obedience to leaders could solve society's problems. Goldberg finds similarities between fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism -- and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists, communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and totalitarianism.
It is hard to find American counterparts, especially among liberals. Father Coughlin and Huey Long (discussed by Goldberg) were tempted by a proto-fascist authoritarian populism in the 1930s. Some white Southerners (not discussed) embraced violence and authoritarianism, as did the Weathermen and the Black Panthers (discussed) and rightist militias (not discussed). Neocons (not discussed) today endorse militarism. Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that is what both conservatives and socialists usually say. To assert that the Social Security Act or Medicare shows a leaning toward totalitarianism is ridiculous. The United States, along with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon and Northwestern European world, has been protected from significant fascist influences by the shared commitment of liberals, conservatives and social democrats to democracy. Fascism is not an American, British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand vice. It only spread significantly in one-half of Europe, with some lesser influence in China, Japan, South America and South Africa. Today it is alive in very few places.
A few of Goldberg's assaults make some minimal sense; others are baffling. He culminates with an attack on Hillary Clinton. He quotes from a 1993 college commencement address of hers: "We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves." Such vacuous politician-speak could come from any centrist, whether Republican or Democrat. But Goldberg bizarrely says it embodies "the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century." Is he serious? He then quotes briefly from her book It Takes A Village. "The village," she wrote, "can no longer be defined as a place on the map, or a list of people or organizations, but its essence remains the same: it is the network of values and relationships that support and affect our lives." One may question whether that is a profound definition or a banal one, but does it deserve Goldberg's comment that here "the concept of civil society is grotesquely deformed"? Whatever Sen. Clinton's weaknesses, she is neither a totalitarian nor an enemy of civil society.
In an apparent attempt at balance, Goldberg indulges in very mild and brief criticism of conservatives who are tempted by compassionate (i.e., social) conservatism, though here he uniquely refrains from using the f-word. In the book's final pages, he reveals his neo-liberalism (though he does not use the term). Since neo-liberalism, with its insistence on unfettered global trade and minimal government regulation of economic and social life, merely restates 19th-century laissez-faire, it is in fact the only contemporary political philosophy that significantly pre-dates both socialism and fascism. Unlike modern liberalism or modern conservatism, it shares not even a remote family resemblance with them. That is the only sense I can make of his overall argument.
But a final word of advice. If you want to denigrate the Democrats' health care plans or Al Gore's environmental activism, try the word "socialism." That is tried and tested American abuse. "Fascism" will merely baffle Americans -- and rightly so.

Copyright 2008, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

Positive reviews

Author David Pryce-Jones, a colleague of Goldberg's at National Review, wrote,
Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth-century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It's always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg's insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.[17]
A review in Publishers Weekly said:
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism’s spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. ... Goldberg’s study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. ... The book’s tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny.[18]
Larry Thornberry of the Washington Times called the book "a major contribution to understanding the history of political ideas and attitudes over the last two centuries and change. ... Readers of Mr. Goldberg's column and articles are warned that they will find little of his usual humor and whimsy. "Liberal Fascism" is not a tome. But it's a relentlessly analytic treatment of a large, serious and complex subject. "[19]
Ron Radosh of The New York Sun wrote:
Mr. Goldberg presents a strong and compelling case that the very idea of fascism emanated from the ranks of liberalism. ... He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject. ...Some will rightfully take issue with Mr. Goldberg when he describes the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton as fascist. On this, he strains and pushes his evidence too far to convince the reader that these paragons of liberalism can be called fascist in any sense of the term. Mr. Goldberg makes a stronger case when he accuses the New Left of classic fascist behavior, when its cadre took to the streets and through action discarded its early idealism for what Mr. Goldberg correctly calls "fascist thuggery."[20]
Marvin Olasky of World Magazine wrote,
Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is a flawed but useful attempt to redraw the political map. Goldberg shows how Woodrow Wilson began and Franklin Roosevelt amplified an almost-fascist concentration of power in Washington. FDR boasted of his 'wholesome and proper' buildup of power because he was leading 'a people's government.' Goldberg shows how liberals came to believe that authoritarian government is fine as long as representatives of 'the people' — themselves — are in charge.[21]

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's ‘Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:
Wells did not label his ‘entire…philosophy’ liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. ... Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be ‘fascist’ means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a ‘liberal fascist’ would pursue fascist ends but in a ‘liberal’ or at least more ‘liberal’ way. [22]
(So by that measure we should asign Wells with the Alinsky Attitude of Ends Justifying Means -Asd)

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:
Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue. [23]

 (Goldberg's Definition of Fascism is applied with Taxonomy to other ideologies not by mere "Superstition" but in measure by defining characteristics. How can 'reductio ad absurdum' be applied to comparing Statist Ideologies delving even beyond their statism?)

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:
The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously. [24]
Journalist David Neiwert, wrote in The American Prospect that Goldberg
has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. ... Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. ... Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism...[25]
David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, 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."[26]
Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic: "...I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane--and ultimately self-negating--books that I have ever read. ... Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. ... However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism. [27]
In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "Apparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist." Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson:
It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.
David Gordon, a libertarian scholar with the Mises Institute, wrote in his review "Fascism, Left and Right" that "Jonah Goldberg has ruined what could have been a valuable book." While offering agreement with some of Goldberg's underlying thesis concerning the progressive nature of fascism, Gordon nonetheless finds insurmountable flaws to the book. Gordon states that
"[Goldberg]seems to me too ready to call any resort to "identity politics" fascist; and while he criticizes the 'compassionate conservatism' of George Bush, he turns a blind eye to the effects of Bush's bellicose foreign policy on the domestic scene. Goldberg himself supports the Iraq war; when one is faced with a "good" war, apparently, the link between war and fascism no longer need be of concern"
Gordon's review discovered numerous historical errors that other negative reviews failed to mention. He faults Goldberg's claim that Rousseau is a percursor to fascism and his interpretation of various philospher's statements.[28]




Frequent Topics


  Some frequent topics of his articles include censorship, meritocracy, liberty, federalism and interpretation of the Constitution, his attacks on the ethics and morals of liberals and Democrats, and his disagreements with libertarians also appear often in his writings.


Goldberg is a supporter of the Iraq War and has advocated for American military intervention elsewhere in the world. He has defended historical colonialism (Similarly to Milton Friedman) in places such as Africa as more beneficial than it is generally given credit for; in one column, he suggested that U.S. imperialism on the continent could help solve its persistent problems.[10] When he wrote in October 2006 that invading Iraq was a mistake, he called it a "noble" mistake and still maintained that liberal opponents to the war policy wanted America to fail: "In other words, their objection isn't to war per se; it's to wars that advance U.S. interests... I must confess, one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side." [11]


He popularized and expanded on a commentary by the late Time writer William Henry III. Henry had written on the subject of multiculturalism and cultural equality, stating that "[i]t is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose." Goldberg stated that "[m]ulticulturalism — which is simply egalitarianism wrapped in rainbow-colored paper — has elevated the notion that all ideas are equal, all systems equivalent, all cultures of comparable worth."[12] 

Goldberg dislikes France or, as he writes, is in the "frog-bashing business," using the 'derogatory' term "frog" to designate the French: "the frog-bashing business has changed a lot since I first started just a few years ago".[13]
He has also called for "the total destruction of France as an idea".[14]

Some leftist sycophant commentators, like Brian Dunaway, consider that Goldberg's attitude towards the French is 'francophobic': "The poor souls that visit Goldberg’s columns know that he has made Francophobia a favorite pastime".[15]
Other commentators, such as Timothy Garton Ash, explain Goldberg's attitude, among others, by a deeply rooted "anti-Europeanism" in the United States.[16]
Goldberg also is given credit for making "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" an internet meme, often using the phrase in his NRO writings. The phrase was invented and popularized by the television show, The Simpsons, which Goldberg cited in a column on racism.[17]

The Media

Regarding Fox News, Goldberg said, "Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloidy network."[29]
Goldberg also criticizes liberals for disliking Fox News, claiming they have no "problem with the editorializing of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, they think it's just plain wrong for conservatives to play that game."[29] Goldberg has referred to Olbermann as "MSNBC’s answer to a question no one asked."[30]


In 1994 he was a founding producer for Wattenberg's Think Tank with Wattenberg. That same year he moved to New River Media, an independent television production company, which produced "Think Tank" as well as numerous other television programs and projects. Goldberg worked on a large number of television projects across the United States, as well as in Europe and Japan. He wrote produced, and edited two documentaries, Gargoyles: Guardians of the Gate,[5] and Notre Dame: Witness to History.
Goldberg joined National Review as a contributing editor in 1998. By the end of that year he was asked to launch National Review Online as a sister publication to National Review. He served as editor of National Review Online for several years, and is now editor-at-large.

Feuds and Relations with other writers, public figures

On the political left, Goldberg has feuded with Juan Cole over U.S. Iraq policy and Air America Radio commentators such as Janeane Garofalo, who has accused him of being a chickenhawk on the Iraq War. On February 8, 2005 Goldberg offered Cole a wager of $1,000 "that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it."[18] Cole refused to accept and the wager was never actually made;[19] Goldberg later conceded that if Cole had accepted the bet, Goldberg would have lost it.[20]

Goldberg and Peter Beinart of The New Republic host a conservative vs. liberal webtv show called What's your Problem? which originally could be found on National Review Online [22] but is now appearing on[23] as of 2008.

Goldberg had a friendly but sometimes-contentious relationship with Andrew Sullivan that became increasingly acrimonious over ideological differences.
In October 2006, Goldberg wrote of Dick Morris, "I do not trust Dick Morris. Period."[24]

Goldberg and others at National Review Online (including Rich Lowry) broke with conservative writer Ann Coulter over statements she made about the September 11, 2001 attacks that they considered irresponsible. Coulter stopped writing for National Review Online after the publishing of her column on September 13, 2001, opining that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."[25]
While writing Liberal Fascism, Goldberg declared that his book would be "[not] like Dinesh's latest book. It isn't like any Ann Coulter book. It isn't what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is. Or what Frank Rich imagines it is. It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care". The latter phrase met with some critical mockery, and became a catchphrase used to describe other political work.[26][27] He was additionally criticized for stating that he was writing a chapter on Herbert Spencer, but did not have time to read relevant literature.[28]


Humor and lighter topics

The "Goldberg File" frequently involves humor, often at the expense of leftists.
Alec Baldwin, whom Goldberg insinuates cannot read, (lol) has been a frequent target of such jibes.

Goldberg also makes occasional allusions to Star Trek. [31] More recently, Battlestar Galactica has become a favorite topic.[32]
Goldberg also likes to link to "timewaster" online games in his postings at "The Corner".

Jonah Recomends, The Right Historians

Jonah Recomendations For Liberal Reading

No comments:

Post a Comment