If you’ve spent any time in the trenches of American political Twitter—or whatever we’re calling it this week—you’ve seen the word "fascist" thrown around like a hot potato. Usually, it’s a label used by the left to describe the right. But back in 2008, a guy named Jonah Goldberg decided to flip that entire script on its head. He wrote a book called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, and honestly, it set the intellectual world on fire.
People were livid. Others felt like they finally had a shield against the "F-word" being hurled at them. Goldberg wasn't just trolling, though the smiley face with a Hitler mustache on the cover definitely didn't help lower the temperature. He was making a deeply researched, if highly controversial, argument that fascism isn't actually a phenomenon of the right. He argued it's a "religion of the state" that belongs squarely to the left.
The Core Argument: It’s All About the State
Basically, Goldberg’s big swing is that we’ve been taught the political spectrum all wrong. In the standard view, you’ve got Communism on the far left and Fascism on the far right. Goldberg says that’s a lie cooked up by Stalinist propagandists to distance themselves from their cousins in Italy and Germany.
Instead, he places both under the umbrella of statism.
To Goldberg, jonah goldberg liberal fascism isn't about goose-stepping or death camps—though he doesn't shy away from the darker history. It’s about the "totalitarian temptation." It's the idea that there is no part of life that should be outside the reach of the government. If there’s a problem, the state should fix it. If people are unhealthy, the state should nudge them. If the economy is messy, the state should plan it.
He argues that the original fascists, like Mussolini, were actually disgruntled socialists. Mussolini was a high-ranking member of the Italian Socialist Party before he decided that "the nation" was a better unifying force than "the working class." But the mechanics—the big government, the suppression of individualism, the worship of the collective—remained the same.
Why the Progressives Were the "Original" Fascists
This is where Goldberg really ruffles feathers. He spends a massive chunk of the book talking about the Progressive Era in America. We’re talking about guys like Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.
✨ Don't miss: Power Outage in Chattanooga TN: Why EPB Is Usually Faster Than Your Cell Service
Most history books paint Wilson as a stiff, scholarly guy who wanted to make the world safe for democracy. Goldberg paints him as a proto-fascist dictator. He points to the Committee on Public Information, Wilson’s massive propaganda machine during WWI, and the American Protective League, which basically encouraged citizens to spy on their neighbors.
- Woodrow Wilson: Goldberg argues Wilson used the war as an excuse to turn America into a "war state," where dissent was crushed and the economy was centrally managed.
- The "Organic" Society: Progressives viewed society as a single living organism. If one part was sick (like the poor or the "unfit"), the state had to step in and perform surgery for the good of the whole.
- The Eugenics Connection: This is the part that makes people really uncomfortable. Many early 20th-century progressives were big fans of eugenics. They wanted to "plan" the human race just like they wanted to plan the economy.
Goldberg’s point is that these weren't right-wing ideas. They were the cutting-edge "liberal" ideas of the time. They believed in the power of experts and the "divine right" of the state to manage human affairs.
The "Smiley Face" Fascism of Today
You might be wondering: "Okay, but what does 1920s Italy have to do with me getting a salad at Whole Foods?"
Goldberg’s answer is that modern liberalism has traded the "fist" for the "hug." He calls it "maternal fascism." Instead of a dictator in a uniform, it’s a "nanny state" that wants to manage your life for your own good. It’s the politics of meaning—the idea that the government should give your life purpose and make you feel like you belong to something bigger.
🔗 Read more: Cómo van las elecciones: Por qué los datos de hoy podrían no significar nada mañana
He sees this in everything from Hillary Clinton’s "It Takes a Village" philosophy to the way we treat celebrities like secular saints. It’s a "soft" totalitarianism. It doesn't want to put you in a gulag; it just wants to make sure you’re eating the right calories, using the right pronouns, and supporting the right social causes.
It’s the "politics of meaning" where the state replaces the church and the family as the primary source of identity. Honestly, whether you agree with him or not, it’s a fascinating way to look at why our culture wars are so incredibly bitter. It’s not just about policy; it’s about a clash of "political religions."
Critics and the Historical Pushback
Now, we have to talk about the experts. Most academic historians absolutely loathed this book. Robert Paxton, one of the world’s leading scholars on fascism, basically said Goldberg didn't know what he was talking about.
The main critique is that Goldberg ignores the "Right" in fascism.
Real fascism—the kind that actually happened in Europe—was violently anti-communist, anti-liberal, and usually made deals with big business and traditional elites. It was obsessed with hierarchy, tradition, and the military.
🔗 Read more: Trump Ukraine Russia Strikes: What Most People Get Wrong About the New Peace Deal
Critics argue that by calling everything "liberal fascism," Goldberg makes the word "fascism" meaningless. If a carbon tax is "fascist" and Hitler is "fascist," then the word doesn't really describe anything specific anymore. They say he’s cherry-picking quotes from 100 years ago to score points in a 21st-century cable news argument.
Why it Still Matters in 2026
Even if the scholarship is debated, the impact of jonah goldberg liberal fascism is undeniable. It changed the way conservatives talk. It gave them a vocabulary to fight back against the "fascist" label. It also forced people to look at the darker side of the Progressive Era, something that had been largely ignored in popular history.
Interestingly, Goldberg himself has evolved. Since the book came out, he’s been a vocal critic of the populist turn in the Republican party. He’s noted that some of the "cult of personality" and "nationalist" traits he warned about on the left have started showing up in his own backyard.
Actionable Insights: How to Read the Political Landscape
If you want to understand the modern debate over "liberal fascism," you shouldn't just take Goldberg’s word for it—or his critics'. Here’s how to navigate this intellectual minefield:
- Check the "Totalitarian" Pulse: When you see a new policy, ask: "Is this expanding the state into a new area of private life?" Goldberg would say that’s the "fascist" red flag.
- Look for the Third Way: Both original fascists and modern "liberal fascists" often claim to be "beyond left and right." Whenever a politician says they have a "Third Way" that solves all conflicts, look closer.
- Distinguish Between "Soft" and "Hard" Power: Understand the difference between a government that mandates behavior (hard) and a culture that pressures behavior (soft). Goldberg argues they often work together.
- Study the Progressive Era: Don't just take the textbook version. Read up on the actual writings of Margaret Sanger or Woodrow Wilson. You might be surprised at how "illiberal" some early liberals actually were.
At the end of the day, Goldberg’s book is a warning about the "God-State." It’s a plea for classical liberalism—the kind that believes in limited government, individual rights, and leaving people the hell alone. Whether you think he’s a brilliant historian or a partisan hack, he’s definitely made sure we’ll never look at a smiley face the same way again.
To dig deeper into the actual history Goldberg references, your next step should be looking into the War Industries Board of 1917. It's the most concrete example of how the U.S. government once tried to run the entire economy like a single machine, providing the blueprint for what Goldberg calls the "fascist moment" in America. This will give you a clearer picture of whether his claims about Woodrow Wilson hold water or if they're just provocative rhetoric.