See this interview with him

In the interview, Goldber notes that his book is intended to point out that, notwithstanding that Fascism is often placed on “the right” of the political spectrum, that it actually shares some tendencies with “the left.” He says that he isn’t trying to imply that facsim and progressivism are identical.

Regarding that type of thinking, he says:

No, no. I mean, I try to reject that kind of thing … I don’t believe that liberals are Nazis; I believe that if Nazism came to the United States it is entirely possible that liberals would be at the forefront of the battle to stop it. So would conservatives. I’m not trying to do any argument ad Hitlerum in this book.

Later on he says again:

I don’t say that contemporary liberalism is the direct heir of Nazism or Italian fascism. I say it’s informed by it. It’s like its grandniece. It’s related, they’re in the same family, they share a lot of genetic traits, but they’re not the same thing.

And toward the end he is asked, ” And you say you’re not calling liberals Nazis . . .”, to which Goldberg responds: “I must say it 25 times in the book.”

Progressivism

and

Fascism .

Note the difference between the two.

It was only called Progressivism in the United States. Europeans called it Fascism.

Same political movement, same ideas, same goals.

No.

Progressivism is a more deiverse movement… really a set of movements…with a generalised tendency “favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice).” See this Wikipedia entry

Progressivism was a very broad and generalized phenomenon in the twentieth centruy, which included radicals and well as moderates. As I mentioned earlier, it included many of the goals I specified (ending child labor, better working conditions, ending racial discrimination).

“Fascism” is more specific. It refers to a nationalistic, totalitarian movement which supported “a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.” This is a much more specific definition than that for Progressivism.

While it is true that Fascism had some tendencies which overlapped with Progressivism, they are not the same. (It had some tendencies which overlapped with European conservatism as well, but they weren’t the same either.) Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, whatever you think of them, were not Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

Further, while I would agree that what remains of Progressivism nowadays is the dregs of it… and what remains contains many tendencies which I reflexively oppose, thats not the same as saying that all of 20th century Progressivism was the same. It wasn’t.

Also, while some Progressives in the twentieth century certainly adopted some awful viewpoints (for example, the support of Eugenics by certain birth control activists), a lot of what came out of Progressivism, as a whole, was beneficial. It is worth making a differentiation.

Which one of the previosly mentioned goals would you oppose? Ending child labor? Safety standards for food products? The National Park system? Giving women the vote?

It was only called Progressivism in the United States. Europeans called it Fascism.

Same political movement, same ideas, same goals.

Is this different than what was the case during the Reagan era? If it is what does it tell us about the direction and emphasis of the fundraising policies of the GOP since the Reagan era?

If you are building a majority, you don’t want your members to take on suicide missions. Equally, you can’t have members freelancing and defecting whenever it is convenient for them.

I agree, although the commentor and I might diverge on how we define “freelancing” and “convenient.” One of the skills required of good Congressional leadership should be the ability to reconcile the sometimes conflicting needs of the party and the individual politician.

There is a role for principled disagreement within the party on most issues.

I agree here also. Where the commentor gave me cause for debate was the hyperbole of leaping from a few votes against party-lines, as is normally the case, to worrying about “535 independent political entrepreneurs.”

After John McCain, who is certainly a maverick and with whom I also have policy disagreements, won the GOP nomination for President the disappointed social conservatives whined and raged and generally acted like spoiled toddlers having a fit in Wal-Mart because mommy won’t buy them a Barbie doll. You cannot win elections with this kind of childish reaction when your favored candidate doesn’t get the nomination.

The commentor should not worship Reagan or any other person but he should certainly ask himself, “What was Reagan’s method that he whipped the Progressives like mangy curs in 2 elections and was one of the most popular Republicans in the last hundred years?” And, “How was his approach different than the approach that got the Republicans spanked in the last election.”

Let’s leave individual policies out of consideration, since the commentor doesn’t seem to like Reagan’s policies, and just look at overall approach, which consisted mainly of 2 relatively simple things:

Reagan NEVER demanded purity of thought or action. He welcomed many to the fold, including social conservatives, who were just as wrongheaded then as they are now.

With Reagan the emphasis was on political issues, namely the 3 Golden Political Principles: Limited government, Strong defense and Free markets.

Let us now ask the commentor: We know you don’t like Reagan – what political figures do you revere? And why?