Video: Liberal Fascism

Chris at Apologies Demanded posted an excellent video of Jonah Goldberg on Hannity and Colmes, discussing his important book, Liberal Fascism. Colmes's argument against Goldberg basically consists of this: "Your book has a Hitler with a smiley face on the cover! You're trying to make it look like the Left is all Nazis!" And his debate strategy is basically to shout Goldberg down whenever he tries to say something. I think that this, and Goldberg's "choppy as hell" interview on The Daily Show, shows how important the facts in this book are and how damaging to the Left. For years, the idea was that if you wanted to deride a leftist you called him a socialist, and if you wanted to deride a right-winger, you called him a fascist. Well, the truth is that Fascism and Socialism have the very same philosophical underpinnings, which underpinnings they share with modern liberals. Think here of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their principles of rationalism and class struggle. The Right of today is very much descended from a slightly older and more traditionally American philosophy, the classical liberalism of Smith, Locke, Montesquieu, and others.

Here is the video:

Book Review: Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell

Heather Wilhelm of RealClearPolitics reviews Economic Facts and Fallacies, the latest book from brilliant economist Thomas Sowell. Here's a part:

"Economic Facts and Fallacies" hints at another intriguing explanation, however--a explanation that hovers around the murkier sides of the human psyche. In his discussion of income, Sowell cites a currently popular political lament: the impending "demise" of the American middle class. This widely-accepted assertion, he writes, is simply a function of statistical voodoo: defining a "middle class" income bracket (say, $35,000 to $50,000), claiming it is shrinking, and then ignoring the fact that the bracket is shrinking because average incomes are moving up, not down, the curve.

What could be a simple error for some, Sowell points out, is doubtful to be the case for many in today's chattering class--including Paul Krugman, a trained economist and frequent middle-class Cassandra, who falls into Sowell's category of "people who should know better (and perhaps do know better)." Why would writers like Krugman repeat a negative spin that is contradicted by facts? That, Sowell writes, is a "question that goes beyond the realm of economics."

Indeed.

There is really very little in economic news that would not be illuminated by a few semesters of college-level economics. I have met intelligent people who believe, for example, that an increase in the minimum wage will not decrease employment. Everyone knows about economic problems like the trade deficit; but without knowing the foundations of economic study (supply and demand curves, elasticity of demand, opportunity cost, etc.), no one knows what any of it really means, except that Lou Dobbs tells them that having a trade deficit is bad. (Incidentally, Jason Lewis pointed out yesterday on Rush's show that unless America becomes a bad place to invest--say, because of environmental regulation or high taxes--trade deficits don't matter. After all, he informed his borrowed audience, we had a nice trade surplus once. During the Depression.)

What is most shocking to me is the number of intelligent people who believe that the laws of economics might take a holiday if, say, we have a minimum wage, or price controls, or we make incentives not to produce.

Book Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Over at TCS Daily, Arnold Kling writes what I think is a very thoughtful review of Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. He concludes:

I think that a better approach for convincing the judge to get tougher would be to show more clearly the parallels between the quasi-religious views that lie behind today's progressive agenda and the thinking behind past mistakes. In my view, they are linked by faith in unproven scientific fads, faith in technocratic elites, and faith that those who share progressive ideology have superior wisdom and moral standing that justifies ruling over others. I believe that the best way to insulate oneself against romanticizing the state is to recognize these faiths and their dangers.

Well, off to lunch, then class.