|
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 598 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2829 of 3496 found the following review helpful:
 "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made" - Franklin D. Roosevelt Jan 08, 2008
By David McCune
"self-deprecating and proud of it"
And boy, does Jonah Goldberg have himself some enemies.
It was inevitable that the review section for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" would degenerate into the Mother of all Flame Wars. The advance dislike for this book simmered for months, and now the floodgates for negative reviews are open. I'd advise all potential readers of this book to bear in mind how few of the negative reviews appear to reflect a reading of the book.
For those willing to give Goldberg the chance, he offers the following thesis: that the label fascist has its roots in the governing philosophies of Italy's National Fascist Party and Germany's National Socialist (Nazi) Party. He argues that there has been a false duality created between the Soviet Socialists of the USSR and the socialists united under the fascists in Italy and Germany. He argues that the totalitarian impulse, the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms, is the core uniting principle behind these movements, and he argues that the ongoing home of such statism is in what has come to be known as the "liberal" politics of the modern progressive movement. As you can imagine, that doesn't sit very well with the targets of his argument (hence the rain of 1-star reviews).
I'd encourage open minded readers of all backgrounds to read Goldberg's book and address his arguments. I find his conversational and somewhat informal style to be witty and readable. That said, longtime Goldberg fans should know that this is not a book-length "G-File" (the hip and irreverent column he wrote for National Review Online). This is a serious scholarly work, and it deserves to be read and judged as such. Goldberg is attempting to right a historical injustice. This book is not attempting, as many seem to think, to say that all liberals are closet Nazis, but rather that, contrary to popular misconception, it is not conservatism, but liberalism, that traces its roots to the fascists. In some ways it is a book-length extension of the question conservatives sometimes pose to liberals: "If you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?" (That platform is handily provided in the appendix.) After Goldberg's book, this question is much harder to simply shrug off.
Still, one doesn't need nearly 600 citations just to allow conservatives to say "I'm rubber, you're glue" the next time they are called a fascist. Goldberg argues that our focus on the atrocities committed by fascists in Germany obscures the fact that the fascist drive is, to a degree, universal in modern politics. The heritage and institutions of America lead it to manifest itself in a different form here. Whether it is the smothering embrace of the "It Takes a Village" mommy state or, to a lesser degree, the big-government, "compassionate conservatism" of Bush, fascism in the U.S. is well-intention, "smiley face" fascism, but it still looks first to the state, last to the individual.
In the end, that's what I liked best about this book. Yes, it's great to have a 5-pound rebuttal to the next person who tries to use "fascist" as an epithet to end criticism of a liberal program. However, what comes through in the end is not so much Goldberg's hatred of fascism, but his love of liberty. Fascism in all its forms is the enemy of liberty, and recognizing it for what it is will always be a prerequisite for stopping it. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" clears away decades of obfuscation to allow that recognition in both the past and present day politics. Those who continue to fight for individual freedom will enjoy and appreciate this book.
689 of 868 found the following review helpful:
Finally Someone Has Documented the Link between Wilson's "Progressive" Ideas and Fascism Aug 30, 2008
By David M. Dougherty
First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.
This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.
The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.
The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.
The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.
He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.
The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.
The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.
Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.
So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demagogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.
Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.
46 of 60 found the following review helpful:
The Hidden History Of Our Times Sep 09, 2008
By Steve Jackson
"stevejackson100atyahoocom"
A lot has been written about this book, and I'm not inclined to add much to the debate. If you read LIBERAL FASCISM as providing a grand unified theory of contemporary history you will be able to find some flaws (like most books of the genre). Yet if you read the book to get a quick overview of recent history, I think you will learn a lot. Most people don't know about the importance of eugenics in US history, how "progressive" the Nazis were, the left's infatuation with Communism (and fascism), and many other facts that are brought out in the book.
201 of 273 found the following review helpful:
 Liberal Fascism Mar 26, 2008
By Tom Anson
"raindropGuy"
At this point, I'm only about two thirds of the way through Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. So far, I've found the book to be fascinating. Growing up thinking that "this is just how things are", or hearing the sanitized (or romanticized) versions of recent history, it's really good to see the origins of "liberal" or "progressive" thought, its connection to the fascist or Nazi world view and the context of certain events -- like the unrest and the Great Society agenda of the 1960s.
The author approaches the subject of Liberal Fascism with considerable thoroughness. That is good, because you can get a very good sense of how things fit together, looking at things from several different angles and in different contexts. However, by the time I got halfway through the book, a lot of things were starting to sound very familiar. Since I'm not an historian, I almost wish I had waited for the Readers Digest version to come out.
The author also makes very strong links between the progressives of the early 1900s and the liberal politics of today. And, while you can draw a straight line through these respective agendas, I think the author might be overstating the links. However, as he states, "even when motives and arguments change, the substance of the policy remains in its effects" (p. 276).
All-in-all, I think this book is well worth the time it takes to read it. Certainly, anyone from the Right would gain insights from this book; but, those from the Left could also benefit from the historical perspective of his or her own political view. I think this book would be a great textbook for a college course on political history, and would provide valuable insights into a study of 20th Century American History.
64 of 86 found the following review helpful:
Important reading... Sep 05, 2008
By Silverhand
Goldberg's book wanders from time to time and there are parts that are hard to follow because of this. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book. Goldberg correctly identifies fascism as a left wing movement, a fact that most do not seem to recognize. He exposes the continuity of thought from the so-called progressives a century ago to the so-called progressives today. While identifying similarities between fascism over the last 100 years and today's liberals, he takes pains to insist that he is not saying that today's liberals are just like Nazis (in contrast to some of the other reviews you may read). This is a thought-provoking and enlightening book. Hopefully the skeptical will be motivated to learn the truth.
See all 598 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
The
Importance Of Lighting In Interior Design
by Jessica Ackerman
Everyone knows how important
paint color, furniture choices and artwork are to
interior design. One aspect of design that is often
overlooked, however, is lighting. Lighting not only
affects the brightness of the room, but it can also
change the way a paint color looks, cast shadows in ways
that make the room seem smaller and have an impact on
the presentation of art work.
There is no light like
natural light. If you are buying, building or
remodeling, opt for as much natural light as possible.
Oversized windows and skylights are two ways to get the
most natural light. Of course, not everyone is in the
position to be able to do that, so you'll have to work
with what you have.
How much natural light do
you get in your room? If the room in question faces
north, you won't get as much natural sunlight as you
would in a southern facing room. Rooms that face south
get bright, natural light throughout the day. Rooms that
face east will only have good natural light in the
morning hours and western facing rooms will have the
most light during the afternoon.
Once you are familiar
with how much natural light is in each room, you'll be
able to make informed choices about what additional
lighting may be necessary. Keep in mind that rooms with
little or no natural light will need artificial lighting
- even during the day - in order to look their best.
Here are some types of lighting to consider.
1. Accent Lighting
Accent lighting is
perfect when you want to showcase a piece of art or a
special piece of furniture or other item. Since light
draws the eye, it will bring attention to the features
in your room that you wish to highlight.
2. Hanging Light Features
Chandeliers and smaller
hanging lamps can be beautiful as well as functional. A
trip to the local home improvement store will quickly
show you how overwhelming the choices can be. You'll
want to select lighting that blends in with your
existing dÃÂécor. For example, a crystal chandelier in a
country themed dining room probably isn't the best
option. If you don't choose carefully, your lighting may
stick out like a sore thumb and become more of an
eyesore than a lovely accent.
3. Recessed Lighting
Recessed lighting is a
good choice for a room that needs extra light throughout
the day. Because the lighting won't interfere with the
existing decor, it can work in almost any room. It
provides abundant light without taking up a lot of space
or interfering with other aspects of the room.
4. Lamps
Using lamps are a way to
add not only additional lighting, but also punches of
color. If possible, see how much light the lamp gives
off before leaving the store. Many lamps serve as
decoration more than as a light source and give off very
little light. If you love the lamp, but it doesn't give
off quite enough light, consider changing the shade
which will usually solve the problem.
When decorating your
home, remember how important lighting is, and give it
the same thought and attention you give to the other
details of decorating your home.
About the Author
Jessica Ackerman is the
featured author at Wall DÃÂécor and Home Accents. Shop today
for great deals on
metal wall sculpture ,
home
accents and more unique wall dÃÂécor products.
|
|
| | |
|
|
