The Myth of “Liberal Fascism”



Of the many revisionist narratives that right-wing polemicists have been pushing in recent days, perhaps the brassiest of all is that fascism is a movement of leftist/ liberal origin. This claim isn’t just wrong; it’s arguing a case that is literally the direct opposite of reality. Liberalism, however misguided it may be at times, is at its heart about… well, heart — which is to say about producing benefit for as many people as possible. Fascism, on the other hand, is an ideology of power that, deliberately or with callous indifference, inflicts harm on those who are not in power. The two are like oil and water.

But the fact that “liberal fascism” is an oxymoron has not prevented it from taking root among the True Believers. Two bestselling books have emerged from the right-wing fever swamps that have reinforced and popularized this bizarre myth: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, and The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza. (Not just fascist, mind you, but Nazi.) Both of these esteemed authors have been frequent contributors to the excruciatingly vapid National Review, which we’ve covered in a three-part series. Both are astoundingly inept sophists who sometimes (particularly in D’Souza’s case) border on sheer lunacy.  (D’Souza, by the way, is also a convicted criminal.) But they somehow have managed to convince a large number of people that they are intellectuals who have something of substance to offer.

Like many others who advance this myth, they essentially spend a good deal of time playing a game of Six Degrees Of Separation: FDR had “concentration camps” for Japanese-Americans, and Hitler had concentration camps for Jews — and since FDR was a Democrat and Democrats tend to be more liberal than Republicans, that means that liberals are like Hitler (never mind that FDR didn’t torture or kill his internees, nor were they even subjected to the kind of inhumane conditions as current refugees at the border). Some left-leaning folks were interested in eugenics, and the Nazis were interested in eugenics; therefore, liberals are Nazis (never mind that the purposes and applications were quite different); the Nazis regulated smoking, and liberals regulate smoking; therefore, liberals are Nazis (you’re supposed to forget about the conservatives who also support tobacco regulation); Hitler was a vegetarian and some liberals are vegetarians (ignore the many liberals who are not vegetarians and the conservatives who are).

Sometimes they get really creative in making these connections: Hitler didn’t ban guns, but we can pretend he did; very few liberals ban guns, but we can pretend they all do; therefore, liberals are just like Hitler. And other false Hitlerisms.

Dinesh D’Souza (why do his ramblings remind one of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man?) points to U.S. oppression and genocide against Native Americans and proclaims that it served as a role model for Nazi persecution of Jews. Aside from the dubiousness of such a thesis, the more interesting thing is that only a short time before he proposed it, D’Souza was denying that genocide against Natives occurred at all.

And just why is that shameful spot on America’s timeline supposed to be relevant to liberals? Well, because a large part of it was performed under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, silly; and he was a Democrat, don’t you know. D’Souza is picking up the drumbeat of a very popular right-wing narrative these days: pointing to the shady history of the old Democratic Party without mentioning (and indeed, often even denying) its transformation in the Sixties. He even issued a challenge on Twitter about this and Princeton historian Kevin Kruse gave him more than he bargained for. (This dovetails with another informative Twitter thread Kruse wrote on this topic.)

One talking point these people like to bring up is that Mussolini was a socialist. Yes, he was — to begin with. But he later abandoned the socialist party and started the Italian fascist party, which was vehemently opposed to what he formerly had stood for. He challenged the socialists in elections, tried to overthrow them after they were in power, and even encouraged violence against them.

Then of course there is the origin of the word Nazi: it’s an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party. If the Nazis applied the word socialist to themselves, that settles it, eh? So you’re telling me that a party that engaged in massive genocide and massive dishonest propaganda couldn’t possibly be guilty of deceptive advertising? The Nazis simply heisted a term they thought they could get some mileage out of — not unlike today’s right-wingers co-opting “fake news” and “right side of history”. It’s reported that the Soviet Union prohibited the use of the word Nazi because its disingenuous reference to socialism defamed real socialism. Hitler made it clear by his comments and even more so by his actions that those on the left were The Enemy. Indeed, socialists and communists were the first on the guest list at Nazi concentration camps.

And another thing they bring up — and indeed the apparent inspiration for the title of Goldberg’s book — is the use of the phrase “liberal fascism” in a speech by British science fiction novelist and socialist philosopher H. G. Wells in which he called for a sort of “liberal fascism”. But this does not mean, as some people would insist on inferring, that he considered liberalism actually to be fascist, or vice versa. On the contrary, if he did, why would there be a need to use both words together? He was, instead, deliberately conjoining two words that ordinarily do not keep company, like “compassionate conservative”, in a little exercise of poetic license. He was suggesting that socialism learn from the efficiency and expediency of fascism, not that it embrace the fascist agenda. If you want to know how Wells really felt about fascism, read his 1924 essay, “The Spirit of Fascism: Is There Any Good in It at All?” His response to that question is an unequivocal negative.

In short, these inane revisionist tracts lean heavily on cherry picking, misdirection and disinformation. We’re not going to waste a lot of time going into a detailed analysis of them here, since so many other worthy commentators have already done so. If you’re curious about the two books mentioned, and yet you’re not quite masochistic enough to actually read them in their entirety, it’s easy to find adequate excerpts, summaries and debunkings. There is an excellent analysis of D’Souza’s embarrassing volume by the always-astute Nathan J. Robinson at Current Affairs, and other worthwhile articles about D’Souza in general that include discussions of this particular book at The New York Times, Lit Hub ,  U.S. News  and The Atlantic among many other places. The History News Network ran an entire series of articles, written by actual scholars of the topic, about Goldberg’s contribution to the canon. They also published Goldberg’s response, and then their responses to his response.

His response, by the way, was exactly what you have come to expect from members of the right-wing punditocracy: petulant, accusatory and intellectually dishonest. He declared that the historians critiquing his brilliant words were engaging in personal attacks. They weren’t. He cited a saying to the effect that “if you’re getting flak, you must be over the target”; evidently he believes that if his claims had actually been wrong, nobody would have bothered with correcting them. This jejune behavior is quite in line with the tone of the book; he even states in the intro that his whole purpose in writing it was to get even with liberals who have (rather more accurately) linked fascism with right-wing extremism. Thus, he penned a defense saying basically, “No, you’re really the fascists; it takes one to know one. And by the way, your mother wears army boots”. Jonah and most of his fellow winger pundits are card-carrying members of the “neener neener, suck my wiener” school of discourse.

The best thing that can be said in defense of the revisionists is that fascism did draw, in some small measure, upon certain left-leaning movements of the past.  But it also drew upon many other influences, including Christianity; does this make fascism a Christian movement? At Arc Digital, in offering a repudiation of Goldberg that nonetheless graciously grants him a bit of a chance to save some face,  Joshua Tait observes:

Historically, too, fascism was of the right. Its supporters were from social groups that supported right-wing parties. Its allies, domestically and internationally, were rightists. Fascists rose to power fighting leftists and abetted by conservative allies. Mussolini called his fascist journal Hierarchy. The Italian manifesto The Doctrine of Fascism proclaimed, “we are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

Hierarchy, by the way, is a cornerstone of right-wing ideology in general, and particularly of fascism.

And in the feature on Fascism at Encyclopedia Britannica (an article written, unlike the two books in question, by an actual historian) , there is this succinct passage:

Many fascist ideas derived from the reactionary backlash to the progressive revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 and to the secular liberalism and social radicalism that accompanied these upheavals.

A backlash to progressive revolutions and secular liberalism. Not an outgrowth of them. This article also contains a listing and description of the defining characteristics of fascism. These include:

Opposition to Marxism
Opposition to parliamentary democracy
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
Totalitarian ambitions
Conservative economic programs
Alleged equality of social status
Mass Mobilization (e.g., rallies)
Leader with absolute power
Glorification of violence
Extreme nationalism
Revolutionary image
Sexism and misogyny
Acceptance of racism
Identification with Christianity

This is only a partial roster,  and the article contains more details about these traits, and links to documentation. But you can see just by glancing at the list above that the idea of “liberal fascism” doesn’t hold water. Does it make any sense at all for a liberal movement to oppose liberal values while embracing conservative economics and corporatism?

In the U.S., as in Nazi Germany, fascism is closely linked with white nationalism, which is definitely a right-wing earmark. But the right-wing revisionists have been trying desperately to shift that burden (as in pretending that the racist Democrats of bygone days were liberals). Accordingly, they’ve wrung a great deal of mileage out of the fact that Hillary Clinton was on friendly terms with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the KKK many, many years ago. They have even circulated a fake photo of Sen. Byrd, in his silver-maned years, posing in his KKK regalia — it apparently doesn’t occur to them, or they just don’t care, that the photo is doctored. In any case, they make the argument that this proves Hillary is a racist, and therefore that all Democrats are, and therefore all liberals are.

Robert Byrd joined the KKK in the Forties as a very young man. He renounced it a few years later. By 1970, his views on race had totally evolved. Long before the end of his career, he was on good terms with, and winning accolades from, the NAACP.  But somehow, Hillary Clinton’s association with one man who was a member of the KKK many decades ago is supposed to matter more than the self-proclaimed Nazis and KKK members demonstrating in the streets right now — virtually all of whom vote Republican and are enthusiastic supporters of the Forty-Fifth White House Occupant.

It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that the desperate attempts by the revisionists to draw some long, tenuous threads of history between fascism and liberalism are a decoy to divert attention away from the cozy relationship between conservatives and fascists in the present.



  1. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Too often liberals have been fascist collaborators. In the end, bourgeois liberals will (however reluctantly, perhaps) side with their material class interests. They will turn to fascist thugs to protect them from the rabble. That’s what history has shown, at least.

    • And history has shown that there has never been any country which has truly established an authentic communist system. I know Marx did not intend Stalin and Lenin to cause so much suffering when they became ruthless and paranoid leaders who (actually controlled the political systems they governed with their greed and fears )–the direct opposite of what Marx’s visions entailed. He would also not have wanted Mao Tse Tung to kill millions of his countrymen in order to establish himself as a virtual human God. Under him, communism became nothing more than a controlling and ruthless religion.

      Communism is an excellent philosophy, but in reality a true classless society has never existed. So perhaps you should temper your views about liberals. Most of us want to establish a government which cares about reducing income equality, provides a single payer option that will allow millions more Americans to purchase affordable and adequate healthcare, and the role Unions need to play in order to prevent wealthy materialists from abusing their low paid employees. And we despise the Supreme Court’s misguided and downright stupid ruling that helps wealthy Americans elect anyone they choose by using vast amounts of money as form of free speech?

      I can’t really say how many of us might abandon our ideals in times of financial distress in order to establish their own security in a world which has always worshiped materialism. However, not all of us would. My own parents lived through the Depression by literally watching every penny they spent and by taking advantage of the work programs Roosevelt established, yet they remained liberal Democrats for their entire lives.

      This world is not quite as unfeeling and corrupt as you may think and many of us Ado not fit the definition of Bourgeois liberals. Republicans are the ones that are truly materialistic. yes, there have been liberals that betray their own parties in times of distress and enable Republicans to convince Democrats that only conservatives can restore our financial and moral status–what a laugh! However, many ordinary liberals don’t fall for that crap!

  2. For those who are not into, or are tiring of political analysis, I submit the definitions of these two salient words;

    lib·er·al (lĭb′ər-əl, lĭb′rəl)
    a. Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded. See Synonyms at broad-minded.
    b. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    c. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
    a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
    b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
    3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
    4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
    a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
    b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

    Do most of these definitions under number 2, apply to fascists?

    How about these below?

    con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
    1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
    2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
    3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
    a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
    b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
    5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.
    6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
    7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
    1. One favoring traditional views and values.
    2. A supporter of political conservatism.
    3. Conservative A member or supporter of a Conservative political party.

    Although there may not be a direct equivalence between the definitions of “conservatives” and “fascists,” are Fascists typically tolerant of others? Are they broad minded? Are they generous?

    You decide which definition fits fascist political views the best?

  3. This review is a necessary and overdue corrective to the nonsensical historical revisionism peddled by Dinesh D’Souza, Jonah Goldberg and other “conservatives” for whom distorting context is laudable so long as the end result is a stronger Red State movement. While I take issue with the author’s implication that President Trump gives succor to fascists, the overwhelmingly reality is that fascism and Nazism are, and always have been, phenomena of the Right and not the Left. To the smug, arrogant, ignorant and violent-tempered Breitbart mob/echo chamber, of course, none of this is relevant.

  4. Between the two extremes, Left and Right lie Liberalism and the European phenomenon democratic socialism. Liberals before 1968 were more or less liberal in common sense. That changed due to the Western cultural revolution inspired by Third World revolutionaries such as the mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung et al.—If we use the image of a horseshoe, the upper-middle is represented by liberals and like-minded fringe parties, left and right. Nearing the end of the horseshoe on both sides one has far left and far right. The end edges meet at the narrow space: communism and Nazism! In outlook, style, party regalia, mass-mobilization, and overall organization the two supposedly antagonistic mass-movements are not to differ from one another. They are the same!

    • D’Souza is right. Fascism is a leftist ideology. There’s good evidence for that stance. Already the renowned German-British psychologist, H.J. Eysenck decades ago found individual traits that determined authoritarian personalities were equally found in the political observance of the extreme right as well as left.—It’s the psychological model but you find the same scheme in the overall political Weltanschauung.

      • Sorry, this is not the place to argue that black is really white. You’re thinking of PragerU or something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s