You write a book calling liberals fascists and then whine about how nobody is taking it seriously and deriding it on its face (not to mention concocting half-wit conspiracy theories about how liberal book store employees are so distraught by your book that they’re hiding it, never mind that the vast majority of them don’t care and are way more interested in the latest literary novel than yet another political dreckfest). Idiots. It’s like writing a book called "I Like To Kill Puppies" and then wondering why the ASPCA isn’t holding a luncheon in your honor.
I will never be stupid enough to be conservative. Never.
O–
Jonah Goldberg will be at the L-street Borders in DC tomorrow at 6:30 pm. I plan to be there.
What should I ask?
Keith Olbermann ripped the gasbag a new azzhole tonight. Check out his “Worst Person in the World” segment.
Ask him to define fascism, and when he can’t ask him why fascism figures so prominently in his book.
I once worked in a liberal bookstore in the most liberal city on the East Coast, and we carried Coulter books, O’Reilly books (Bill, not the computer books), and Malkin books.
It was particularly satisfying when someone would come to the info desk and smugly ask if we had any of the above, sure that we wouldn’t. Then we marched them right over to the Politics section, pulled the book off the shelf and handed it to them (which is considered good bookselling). Funny, they always seemed to put it right back and slink out without actually buying it.
The ironic thing is the liberal book stores are pretty good models of capitalism.
I travel a lot on business. I have been in bookstores in a number of states, primarily Borders Books.
Goldberg’s “book” is right out in plain sight. I’m guessing people just ain’t buyin’ it. The book or the bull.
Typical conservative. Blame the liberals for your own failure.
The guy who wrote in to NRO complaining about the Borders employee hits on something that has worried people in the book business for quite some time.
When a few mega-chains can make or break a book with their ordering decisions, that’s not good for a diversity of voices and opinions. And that’s why I buy from independent booksellers whenever I can.
Funny how conservatives defend the megacorp bookstores–until they have a book that does poorly.
I make it a point to look for creationist or ID books in the science sections and take it upon myself to move them to Religion.
Jonah Goldberg is speaking in DC at the Borders on 18 and L at 6:30 this evening. If anyone wants to meet me there, I’ll be the guy in the brown shirt and jack boots.
Some commenter on Yglesias’s site had a pretty funny takeoff:
Conservative Stalinism: The Secret History of the American Right, From Roy Cohn to the Neo-Cons
“Stalinists,” “Commies,” “elitist commissars”—such are the insults typically hurled at liberals by their conservative opponents. Calling someone a Stalinist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real Stalinists in our midst?
Conservative Stalinism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define Stalinist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, JB reminds us that the original Stalinists were really on the right, and that conservatives from Theodore Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Stalin’s Bolsheviks.
Contrary to what most people think, the Stalinists were ardent conservatives. They believed in runaway military spending and in labeling their domestic opponents weak-willed traitors. They advocated submission to government authority and spent vast sums fighting anti-democratic movements in Spain and Germany. They presided over a revival of old-fashioned patriotism during the aptly-named “Great Patriotic War.” The Stalinists declared war on drugs, supported the death penalty, warantless searches, and torture. They loathed disorder, provided generous hand-outs to their political allies, and marginalized liberal professors in their universities. The Stalinists led the world in opposing the rise of (national) socialism. Nikolai Yezhov tried enemies of the state without allowing them to see the evidence against them, and Stalin himself preemptively occupied Eastern Europe to guard against a resurgence of Germano-fascism.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s conservatives are militaristic maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new ideological order? Uh… not at all! Yet it is hard to deny that modern conservativim and classical Stalinism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Stalin had many admirers in the United States. Richard Nixon betrayed Taiwan in favor of Maoist China, and Jeane Kirkpatrick was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League. David Horowitz’s parents were ardent Stalinists. Many Stalinist tenets, including price controls and official “enemies lists,” were incorporated into Nixon’s domestic policy agenda.
Stalinism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Russia, Stalinism appeared as genocidal collectivist radicalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more conservative form. The modern heirs of this “friendly Stalinist” tradition include the Weekly Standard, the Republican Party, the conservative think tanks, and the hosts of talk radio. The quintessential Conservative Stalinist isn’t an NKVD murderer; it is an East Coast pundit at the Heritage Foundation or National Review.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what Stalinism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, JB turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Conservative Stalinism.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/all_i_want_for_christmas.php#comment-1026295
So I went to the Jonah Goldberg talk at Borders on 18th and L last night, all prepared to try out some dumb stunt like ask him to sign my Hillary/Hitler picture or ask a question like “If liberals are fascists, does that mean David Brooks is Neville Chamberlain?” I wound up not doing that, because he’s obviously too slippery for it, but I did come away from the talk surprised and pleased at how defensive his argument is.
I didn’t know it beforehand, but Goldberg’s history is the opposite of normal conservative revisionism. I was expecting him to try to reclaim liberal heroes for conservatism, arguing something along the lines that the noble JFK would hate the fascist Teddy Kennedy, or that Truman would have voted for Reagan, or that MLK would have distanced himself from today’s civil rights movement and was secretly a conservative, etc. Basically I was expecting something along the lines of “the Democrats used to be great, but they’re all way more liberal and fascisty now than they used to be, and the party left me.” I think Victor Davis Hanson says something like this. Instead, Jonah lumps the entire mainstream bipartisan consensus form of 20th century American government from FDR to Nixon under ‘liberal fascism,’ which is the opposite approach, and which is fine by me, a Galbraith Democrat. I’ll certainly take credit for Ike’s domestic policy if the conservatives don’t want it. Fascism to Goldberg means pretty much any federal activity, it turns out, but what does that mean conservatives get credit for? Tax cuts? Deregulation? Opposing lots of popular stuff?
Conceding all the major successes of 20th century government to liberalism only heightens the isolation of conservatism historically and ideologically from mainstream America. Given that conservatives look like they’ll be punished again this November, Goldberg calling the rest of America fascist seems like a confirmation of conservatism’s increasing ideological, historical, and electoral marginalization.
And Jonah did mention Matt Yglesias, calling yesterday’s post “lame” and saying something along the lines of “he felt he had to read my book, but I won’t read his, and doesn’t that really sum it all up, ladies and gentlemen?” So Goldberg seems defensive and off-kilter all around, which I take as a good sign for those of us who would like to see conservatism retreat back into the basement of American politics whence it came.