Goldberg claims that Liberals are fascists

A mere wag of a finger doesn't quite match the repugnance of that frame. That kind of thing makes me roll my eyes and shake my head in disgust and amazement. And then I try to carry on.

I'm not familiar with the author, but I see from Amazon that he's been a national columnist. Does he have much of an audience he influences

besides the folks who already believe such things?

He appears regularly in my local paper, so I assume he is widely read--unfortunately. But who knows if it's more than conservative true believers. I don't know whether the book deserves to be ignored or attacked head on.

"Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/[…]h_goldbergs_bizarro_history

Thinking about this some more, I realized that boxers and other athletes sometimes engage in "trash talk" before their real match occurs. It seems to me most sports fans understand that trash talk is about emotional combat, that the insults are grossly exaggerated or totally fabricated, and that the words aren't meant to convey facts.

There was a time when I viewed politics as something of a spectator sport. I'm pretty sure other folks do that now. In this case that may be fortunate, in a way, because it suggests to me that casual political spectators may discount outrageous political comments as just another form of trash talk. My impression is that a lot of the folks don't bother to pay attention to such allegations because of the trash talking tone. They sense the emotional combat aspect, and that's all they need to know.

I enjoy Dave Niewart's writing. He's great with facts and careful analysis. I suspect the primary audience for political trash talk cares more about the game of emotional combat than the facts of history, however. Thinking about this stuff in terms of trash talk helps me to reframe it for my own peace of mind. If I encounter a spectator who is trying to make sense of this stuff, I might reframe it as trash talk to see if that helps to devalue the nonsense.

Thanks for the heads-up and the analysis.

Cheers

Commenting on my own comment--I found a pretty good response on how to deal with smears on the order of Goldberg's Ministry of Truth publication.

http://www.ourfuture.org/[…]/liberal-fascism-isnt-about-fascism

Last week Jon Stewart attempted to interview Goldberg about the book. Apparently Stewart found it difficult to hold a coherent conversation with Goldberg:

http://www.thedailyshow.com[…]84&title=jonah-goldberg

If memory serves me, didn't the right-wing nuts have to sign loyalty oaths to attend Bush's campaign events?????? Individuals removed from said events for anti-Bush attire and in some instances anti-Bush bumper stickers???? That is true fascism. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SORRY EXAMPLE OF THE RIGHT WING REWRITING HISTORY OR PLACING ARGUMENTS IN DOUBLE NEGATIVE FORM. Goldberg is nothing more than another pompous mouthpiece, constantly twisting facts to fit his argument.