Protein Wisdom is fun when Goldstein is posting, and is not when he isn't (and he doesn't post much lately).

James is such a good-natured blogger, isn't he? That always comes through. James, you should do more bloggingheads.

What it boils down to, unfortunately, is that Ed is a reliable partisan who rarely thinks outside the box. (I was trying to comment on how James was being diplomatic. As for me, I am banning myself from the comments for a fortnight.)

What it boils down to, unfortunately, is that he's a reliable partisan who rarely thinks outside the box.

A compliment from Juan Cole? Yikes.

The topic at hand hmmm ... Fark isn't too far out there in their oft politic posts/links (no, seriously). Dr. Sanity can be a lil edgy occasionally, but tis fun to feel stoopid trying to get through the more dense models and verbiage. And Discarded Lies has a fair number of bleeding heart neocons (among the boomsky tossers/flame throwers).

Rational? Where's the fun in that? :-)

Since "Captain Ed" was just mentioned a couple of posts down, where did he fit?

He's pretty solid on all three counts, I think. He's the voice of a bright, decent guy with a passion for news rather than of an academic but his stuff's very worth reading to get a sense of how normal Republicans are apt to view issues.

Ok, we're talking past each other and most likely because it's too simple an issue. I'm going to try again by restating Joyner's position: Goldberg's argument is quite silly. Additionally, his book's title is incendiary/inflammatory. That's all I was trying to state. Nothing on the merits.

In your 6:16am you wrote:
"Ummm, I think Joyner said the TITLE was silly (actually unnecessarily incendiary). I may have missed it, but I've yet to see where Joyner actually reviews the book."

The problem is that this is wrong. Joyner did NOT say the title was silly. He said the argument was silly, and the title was inflammatory. It's that simple. Reread the quote.

That's why I went to the trouble to post the relevant source quote, which to my surprise clarified nothing for you.

It's not that huge a deal, but there's just no wiggle room on this one.
---------------------------------------------
Now if you want to discuss the actual merit of liberal fascism, that's a different beast. Above, I was just restating Joyner's initial dismissal of it, like most others.

I freely admit I am no fascist scholar. I have no problem going back and forth on this with you, being wrong and so forth.

My biggest problem with (the closest thing to) Jonah's definition of fascism that I've seen is that it's far too broad. This overinclusivity would seem to be no accident because it is precisely this expansiveness that lets him bring in all of the usual suspects under his watchful eye.

(By the way, I emailed him for a better def, and he stated he didn't have one. He stated he deliberately (but not maliciously) left it a bit opaque for unstated reasons in the book.)

Here is the definition I've seen:

"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 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."

So Jonah cannot, from the outset, differentiate between fascist and totalitarian regimes. Also, he has problems with demarcating between achieving ones political goals via fascist worship of violence and ... regulation and social pressure.

I think the problem is that this is a soup-to-nuts approach to defining fascism/totalitarianism. What wouldn't fall into this bin? This is a kitchen sink approach.

He clearly doesn't see modern conservatives as fascists, yet Schiavo is clearly the sort of unity of state and citizen that would precisely exemplify his definition.

That's for starters. I just don't see where to go with this type of thinking - it's ... all over the place, amorphous, sloppy. He needs to define his terms more carefully, slow down, set some boundaries. I don't see how to differentiate between totalitarianism and fascism, between liberalism and fascism, and between conservatism and fascism, with his definition. I don't see any reason to try, either, until he does his intellectual homework.

the argument that American liberals are proto-Fascists is quite silly.

True, they are state of the art-Fascists.

Goldberg's argument that liberals are proto-fascist

Quite a fallacy here Barry - and the prime reason I commented, both here and on the original thread. It is not Goldberg's argument, it is Joyner's (and I suspect, your) impression of Goldberg's argument based primarily on the title. Have you read the book?

Goldberg is not arguing that liberals are "proto-fascists", rather he is arguing that it is silly for liberals to accuse only conservatives of fascism when it is, in fact, primarily from the left that fascistic states have come.

And as far as Prestopundit is concerned, yesterday is my first visit, and yeah, it does seem... pedestrian.

"He’s on the list almost exclusively by virtue of his book, Liberal Fascism, and the recent controversy over it. While I get the desire to rebut the notion that Fascism is right-wing phenomenon and therefore somehow comparable to American mainstream conservatism, the argument that American liberals are proto-Fascists is quite silly. The use of inflammatory titles, while an excellent publicity vehicle for selling books, is decidedly unhelpful if one’s purpose is to advance serious argument."

So there you have it: Goldberg's argument that liberals are proto-fascist is 'quite silly'; his title is 'unhelpful' and 'inflammatory' (or incendiary, same thing). So yes, actually Joyner DID call the whole strain of thought silly - 'quite silly.' Very sloppy, Bain.

And as far as my objection to the military as props, the only reason I pointed it out was that Presto seems utterly ordinary for the right wing blogosphere. He claims to be so insightful, etc, but here we have a post on liberal fascism and a limousine librul on the front page. Oh my, the originality. I haven't seen that since ... yesterday.

Joyner himself recently said he thinks his whole strain of thought is silly.

Ummm, I think Joyner said the title was silly (actually unnecessarily incendiary). I may have missed it, but I've yet to see where Joyner actually reviews the book.

Further, your objection to Bush using the military as a prop is unsurprisingly one-sided. All politicians use groups of people as props - shamelessly so.

Seeing as how your first page cites liberal fascism, I think I'll pass. You claim to be thoroughly thoughtful and then ... cite one of the sloppiest conservative writers out there. Joyner himself recently said he thinks his whole strain of thought is silly.

And seeing how you get angry over the use of soldiers as props, ugh, that clinches it. The GOP has used soldiers as props for so long during Bush's admin I don't even have the energy to bother to rebut your nonsense.

Boy, THAT was an efficient comment thread. Flush!

Few blogs are more intellectual -- I blog lots on economics, philosophy, Hayek, etc.

Few blogs are more conservative -- I'm a true blue Goldwater, Taft, Reagan conservative. No "compassionate conservatism" for me, thank you very much.

Thoughtful -- well, yes, usually thoroughly thoughtful, but now and then I believe that to reach the higher intellectual faculties types requires a swing of the sledgehammer. Philosophy and economics with a hammer, that's sometimes what it takes. So, thoughtful yes, and now and again a swift whack to the head.

What I mostly insist is that my readers do some thinking and learning on central topics they've so far avoided. Lefties and GOP hacks read at your own risk.