I mean, if FDR is fascism, bring it on.

Let's just take FDR. Anyone here whose parents (or grandparents) weren't saved by the New Deal? Social Security? Make-work jobs in the CCC? War-time rationing?

Anyone here prefer Wall Street without the SEC, trade without the FTC, banks without the Fed? (I'm mixing FDR and Wilson here, I know.)

Anyone rather we not have at least tried to eradicate poverty with large-scale programs?

Anyone wish we hadn't bothered going to the moon?

Didn't think so.

Who all was hurt by our "fascists"? Please. Point to them.

I used to be a Republican. I used to read National Review. I've even corresponded with and met Mr. Buckley.

Then one day I realized, I didn't owe the Republicans or conservatives anything. They make appealing arguments, but they don't deliver the goods.

So Goldberg's argument comes down to, Damn the liberals! They're successful at politics. There's only one explanation for this. They're fascists!

I am a conservative, currently registered republican. Wilson is my favorite president, because he was right about the League of Nations, and yes the republicans should have listened to him. FDR came close to being a dictator, and even tried to re-do the Supreme Court in order to get some of his legislation passed. Also, some of the "New Deal" ideas didn't turn out so well, like shooting cows and dumping milk when people were starving in order to raise the price of beef and milk. All I'm saying here is the man wasn't perfect, and it pretty much took a war to get us out of the depression. Some of my relatives believe FDR "knew the Japs were coming" and allowed it in order to get us into that war - personally I don't buy that, but then again I don't buy conspiracy theories in general.

Yes, we are most certainly better off with the FTC, SEC and anti-monopoly laws, but Adam Smith knew these would be necessary. And the best way to eliminate (or greatly reduce) poverty is strong education and a strong economy, not fixed government handouts! Both sides are only half right on that one. No, I'll never be a liberal, no matter how bad the current crop of republicans are.

Strong education and a strong economy alone don't eliminate poverty. The only reason that European poverty rates are even close to American ones is because they have much higher poverty thresholds than the US. By American standards, there is almost no poverty in Europe. So clearly, strong education (US spends much as % of GDP than Europe) and a good economy (US used to grow faster than Europe) do not suffice.

The problem is the intergenerational persistence of economic circumstances. Of course, poor people can't offer their children the same resources as the rich, and they never will. But when even basic things like healthcare, safe and stable housing, and even food are not guaranteed to be available tp the children of the poor, you can forget about equal education and equal chances in employment.

There is no way that one can level the playing field between rich and poor children, but it is certainly possible to close the gap considerably. Most developed countries have. The way the US allows children to suffer for the decisions of their parents is simply immoral.

I'm not certain I understand why there's any debate over the word "fascism" and its meaning.

The word originates from the Italian word "fasci" -- which is a harvested bundle of wheat. Italian "fascisti" thought that a national government was like a shock of wheat -- useless and unstable until drawn into its own center. They espoused an ideal of strong centralist government, providing almost all services and having almost all rights (individuals have rights only insofar as their actions aid the nation-state).

To me, this has only one parallel in U.S. politics, and that is fron the "left" (Mussolini said fascism was a right wing movement) which since the mid-20th century has always wanted more federal power to allow the federal government to provide more services. In the course of pursuing this strategy, a few laudable things have been accomplished -- including the SEC. Many non-laudable things have also been accomplished, which has brought us to the alphabet soup of various federal bureacracies, each able to create law at the stroke of a pen without a congressional vote. Even so, though government is much larger than in the past, the left wants more -- more government services, more redistribution. To my mind this means less, not more, freedom. When we accept a service from the government, we accept government funding. And as any state highway department can tell you, when you accept federal funding, you accept federal control.

No, the modern left are not fascists, they are merely closer to fascist philosophy than the movement conservatives who believe in reducing the size and scope of government.