So here, as best we can find it, is the central thesis of Goldberg’s book. He’s attempting to define Progressivism (of the historical, capital ‘p’ variety) as a literal fascist movement, so that everything liberals ever do, have ever done, or may do in the future can be identified with figures such as Mussolini and Hitler.
Meanwhile, conservatism skates free and blameless for the conditions that made Progressivism necessary — as well as for being incomparably worse regarding all the late-19th and early-20th-Century faults and enthusiasms that Jonah mentions here. See, that’s why it was called ‘Progressivism’ in the first place: Because the conservative view at the time was that children ought to be working sixty hours a week in meat-packing plants, and so forth.
In fact, we must stare in awe as Jonah accuses Margaret Sanger of “nasty racism” for her era-appropriate belief in eugenics, even while the back cover of his book, to be published in January 2008, sports a blurb by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve.
Is there even a word for this? Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.
Update: Out of a near-infinitude of possible footnotes, let me arbitrarily choose the fact that Carl Schmitt is indeed popular among left-academics, just as Jonah says. On the other hand, Schmitt is quite a bit more popular among right-academics, and there’s a certain context to his popularity that’s highly relevant to the topic. But of course, what Jonah typed is strictly true in a literal sense. (Jeez-Louise.)