Goldberg's first problem is to define "fascism" itself. Noah does not provide us with Goldberg's definition (nor am I inclined to purchase the book to find it), but even a brief perusal of Wikipedia demonstrates that the term itself is open to much debate. If we go by Mussolini's own definition of the term -- he did create it, after all, so probably gets the right to define it -- fascism is about "anti-individualism," the idea that "the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value." If that is the essence of fascism, then it is fairly clear that America has had little to do with fascism throughout its history. Our core ethic has always been individualism.

This is not to say that the Left and the Right have renounced government power. But it is a spurious argument indeed to pick ANY inclination toward government power as flag-waving for fascism. Every ideology has defined certain areas where government power is appropriate, but the purpose and extent of that power is what separates each from fascism. In the same sense, it is not an underlying tide of anarchism that provokes us to seek deregulation, either. Back in 1944, George Orwell reviewed the phenomenon of attributing anything distasteful to fascism in his tract What Is Fascism? which, if Goldberg had read it before starting his book, would have made him write something else entirely.

"Every ideology has defined certain areas where government power is appropriate, but the purpose and extent of that power is what separates each from fascism."

That, I believe, is exactly right. Goldberg's book is a sort of political hypochondria. He sees certain tenets that, if taken to the extreme would amount to fascism. In fear, he mistakes them for the real thing. Put another way, by over-playing his hand so grossly, he compromises the (considerable) legitimate grounds upon which liberal anti-individualism can be attached. That being said, conservatives are not exactly anti-big government these days, which raises also some glass house issues for Goldberg.

Liberals call conservatives "fascists" night and day, 24/7, without ever the slightest doubt as to what "fascism" means.

But let anybody turn the tables on liberals, and there is always hell to pay. "What IS fascism" liberals will demand, their eyes aflutter.

There was never any question as to its meaning when applied to hated enemies. Why the sudden amnesia when liberal fascism is called?

Fascism must always mean the heavy hand of government.

The more economic freedom, the less fascism, as a general rule. Of course that there might be exceptions of degree anywhere is enough of a crack in the tent for a liberal nose to poke through, as if to deny the whole of the argument.

In point of fact, demanding more and bigger government, as liberals so consistently do, is more, rather than less, fascist.

To demand socialized medicine, a la fascist Cuba, is more and not less, fascist.

To pretend that the chattering crowd is better able to rule over the masses tends toward fascism, and no crowd chatters more as to its "intellectualism" than do the liberals.

No other class of Americans has supported fascist dictators more than the liberals have, from the Nicaraguan dictator to the Cuban dictator..... Why one of Barack Obama's offices even featured posters of Che Guevara. Nor would Barack denounce this support for the dead communist fascist.

Even Saddam Hussein has been hailed recently by liberal fascists with this dictum: "At least he kept order."

Lovely. So did fascist Adolph Hitler.