We agree -- it's a worn out term

Submitted by Eben Spinoza (United States), Jan 10, 2008 at 12:51

Jonah Goldberg must agree that the term "fascism" is currently most strongly associated with the behavior of Germany under Hitler, and Italy under Mussolini. Therefore, its hard not to question his purposes in concatenating the terms "liberalism" and "fascism."

You may not like Paul Krugman, but tacking the all-purpose epithet of "fascism" on to an argument against taxation and resource redistribution isn't very enlightening. If sharing features with totalitarian governments justifies the use of the term, consider this:

The Hilterian state was, to say the least, quite intrusive into the personal and psychic lives of its members. The Bush Administration, has advocated the intrusion of the state into all kinds of private and personal decisions its citizens (e.g., policies regarding reproduction, marriage and religious belief).

So, in the future, when Mr. Krugman writes a book called "Conservative Fascism," can we count on you to compliment him, too? Or do you think it's time for clear argument and thought -- and time to reserve the use of "fascism" for the historical description of Hitler and Mussolini's regimes in the 20th century?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".