thesis

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1139)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3356)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Steven Hayward asked a key question this weekend: "Is Conservatism Brain Dead?" The key paragraph was this:

About the only recent successful title that harkens back to the older intellectual style is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which argues that modern liberalism has much more in common with European fascism than conservatism has ever had. But because it deployed the incendiary f-word, the book was perceived as a mood-of-the-moment populist work, even though I predict that it will have a long shelf life as a serious work. Had Goldberg called the book "Aspects of Illiberal Policymaking: 1914 to the Present," it might have been received differently by its critics. And sold about 200 copies.

There's one little problem with this: The entire thesis of Goldberg's book is a fraud. Goldberg not only deployed the F-word, he built the entire book on a false, historically untenable, claim: that "fascism, properly understood," is not a right-wing phenomenon but a left-wing one.

Indeed, the spread of Goldberg's thesis into conventional wisdom on the right is one of the main drivers in the transformation of conservatism into a pack of mouth-foaming pseudo-populists:

One of the most persistent components of this is the right's ardent embrace of the fraudulent thesis of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism -- to wit, that "properly understood, fascism is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left." The embrace of this fraud as somehow truthful has produced those teabaggers' signs bearing swastikas (suggesting that health-care reform is fascist) and signs showing Barack Obama as Hitler and, moreover, the claims that Obama is marching the nation down the road to fascism.

It's been particularly embraced by movement conservatives in their efforts to whitewash from public view the existence of right-wing extremists among their ranks.

The impact of this embrace on our national discourse has been deeper than probably anyone suspected when the book was first published last year. Not only is Goldberg's thesis now taken as an article of faith by such right-wing talkers as Rush Limbaugh (who probably helped inspire Goldberg's thesis in any event), Glenn Beck, Michael Savage,, but also among the teabagging protesters whose ranks are increasingly filled by real right-wing extremists.

What's most noteworthy, perhaps, is that Goldberg's thesis is being used to attack anyone who points out the frequently violent and intimidating behavior of these extremists. It's not the right-wing protesters carrying open weapons, Obama=Hitler signs, and openly disrupting the discussion of health-care reform at town-hall sessions who are behaving like Brownshirts, they insist -- it's the liberals who show enough nerve to stand up to them!

You can trace a lot of the popularization of Goldberg's thesis to Beck's open promotion of it, as in the video above from earlier this year. And when you're talking about brain-dead conservatives, Beck is safely Subject No. 1.

Oddly enough, though, Hayward then goes on to suggest that perhaps Beck himself is the chief hope for ending conservatism's intellectual drought. Oy.

If Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck are the leading intellectual lights of this generation of conservatives, there can be no other answer to Hayward's question than an affirmative one.

[H/t to Mitch.]



You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (866)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1912)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News Sunday this week and when asked by Chris Wallace if his thesis he wrote back in 1989 was advocating a "radical agenda", McDonnell did his best to downplay it.

Wallace: You enjoyed according to the polls, a solid lead in this race until it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said, and let’s put up some of the things on the screen, this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia-- The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?

McDonnell: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the, of the thesis was to say, look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.

Look, it’s been twenty years ago and some of my views over time have changed. I strongly support women in the work force. That was one of the criticisms my opponent made. My daughter’s been in Iraq, my daughters both work, my wife is working and outside the home, I mean… those allegations that I think have been inferences from a quote or two out of an old thesis is simply not accurate.

Wallace: But if I may, your opponent says and I’m going to represent his interests here because he’s not here to speak for himself, that it isn’t just what you wrote twenty years ago when you were age 34 in a master’s thesis, that you have followed these as a state legislator. Let’s put up an ad that Creigh Deeds is running.

After playing the clip Wallace points out McDonnell's voting record.

Wallace: In face we checked the record. As a legislator you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender. You voted against extending child care services and you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just a thesis.

McDonnell’s defense… "You have to look at my entire record" and he claims that many of the ads run against him are “outright lies” and are not honest, but he does not say just what those distortions are. Of course Wallace doesn’t follow up and make him give specifics as to what he disagrees with in the ads. That said I think when even Chris Wallace is calling you "radical", that's not a good sign for what the voters are going to think as they learn more about this guy.